global warming

Scienceblogs is shutting down

tlambert — Fri, 20 Oct 2017 21:41:53 +0000

Scienceblogs is shutting down

Well, scienceblogs is shutting down at the end of the month. I don't want all the old posts and comments to disappear, so I'm going to move them all to deltoidblog.blogspot.com.

tlambert Fri, 10/20/2017 - 17:41

Tags

global warming

This is so sad to me. Please let me know if I can access this somewhere else.

There is now a link from the sidebar of http://cyborg.blogspot.com to http://deltoidblog.blogspot.com.

Tim:

I enjoyed reading your blog back when it was active. I am glad you are taking measures to archive it for posterity. Do you ever plan on blogging regularly again?

That's very sad, Tim. Even though I rarely agreed with anyone here I did look forward to giving you all the latest, reliable sea levels in Moreton Bay at every Highest Astronomical Tide of the year.

By the way, the last winter, night time HAT was 250 mm LOWER than it was in 1946 [71 years ago] so you can all relax in the knowledge that the ~1c of warming we have been progressively enjoying over the last 3 centuries is certainly not up to normal climate variability and not only not creating any problems, but so far a benefit.

All the best, Tim.

It is indeed a shame Tim, but I am happy that you have moved onto pastures anew.

As for Drongo, of course people like him, complete ignoramuses, disagree with those who understand science. Sadly, blogs are filled with people like him who suffer from acute cases of ideological Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

To wet your appetite, I have a study accepted for publication in a very good journal that you will most certainly know about soon. Watch this space.

One last point: warming thus far has most certainly NOT had net benefits on ecosystems across the biosphere. Quite the opposite. Indeed, the empirical literature is filled with studies reporting harmful effects. SD is a brainless idiot.

Well, well, well!! A few pleasant words from someone who has never checked sea levels for himself but is so sure that his favourite religion is just as he would want it to be.

That doesn't bode well for any publication he may produce if he applies the same principle.

When you have gone to the trouble and checked it for yourself, jiffy, instead of blithering about the results of consensual Sci-Fi adjustments, get back to me.

Facts have been known to do wonders for science.

The official tide gauge for the Brisbane Bar shows SLR of 0.09 mm/y +/- 0.68 mm/y.

IOW the noise is seven and a half times greater than the signal.

Statistically nothing happening.

A bit like jiffy's Sci-Fi Cli-Sci.

We can only hope that ignoramuses without statistical understanding, like drongo, don't migrate to the new location

About time, Scienceblogs was a lesson in irrational activism, nothing to do with science.

Now that the climate alarm seems to be over, a nice summary piece in the Scotsman to end on,

Dr Keith P Dawson: Cultist dogma of the green lobby is exposed by benefit of more CO2

http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/dr-keith-p-dawson-cultist-dogma-of…

"Climate change fears have been exaggerated by alarmists and activist researchers with vested interests and inaccurate models. Lead UCL scientist Richard Millar, highly voluble at the Paris climate conference, now admits he was wrong, and so do a growing body of other scientists."

"Models upon which expensive policies are being based are “running hot” – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change now acknowledges this. This means 800,000 Scots in fuel poverty, who have to choose between eating or heating are paying too much in unfair “green” taxes."

"A key factor is the proven increase in crop yields caused by increased atmospheric CO2. This is worth more than $100bn per annum in extra grain and reduced prices alone. After initial rebuttal from alarmists, this good news too has been accepted reluctantly. "

;)

SD:

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2017/10/24/what-is-sea-level-up-to-lately/

Thankyou for Deltoid and thanks for choosing to preserve the old threads, which are a great read.

Why is this year's hurricane season so much worse?

gregladen — Sun, 24 Sep 2017 07:16:36 +0000

Why is this year's hurricane season so much worse?

It isn't. Well, it is a little, but not totally. OK, it is, but actually, it is complicated.

First, you are probably asking about the Atlantic hurricane season, not the global issue of hurricanes and typhoons and such. If you are asking world-wide, recent prior years were worse if counted by how many humans killed and how much damage done.

With respect to the Atlantic, this was a bad year and there are special features of this year that were bad in a way that is best accounted for by global warming. But looking at the Atlantic hurricanes from a somewhat different but valid perspective, last year was worse (so far) and this year is ordinary, within the context of global warming. So, let's talk about the global warming question first.

How Global Warming Makes Hurricane Seasons Worse

The effects of global warming on hurricanes in the Atlantic have two interesting features that must be understood to place this discussion in proper context.

First, we are having a bunch of bad decades in a row probably because of global warming. If we compare pre-1980, for a decade, with post 1980, or pre vs. post 1990, or anything similar, the more recent years have had more hurricanes than the earlier years. Comparing to even earlier time periods is tricky because of differences in available data (Satellites make a difference, probably, even with giant weather features like hurricanes). This is mainly due to increasing sea surface temperatures, but there are other factors as well.

Hurricanes are more likely to form when sea surface temperatures are higher. Higher sea surface temperatures can make a hurricane larger or stronger. Hurricanes will last longer if there is more, higher, hurricane-hot sea to travel over. If sea surface temperatures are high enough to cause hurricanes earlier in the year or later in the year, the hurricane season can be longer. Possibly, storms that in a non-warmed world would not have made it to "named storm" status are moved to that level of strength and organization because of the elevated sea surface temperature.

Sea surface temperature increases of small amounts cause large changes in hurricanes, and large changes in hurricanes cause larger changes in potential damage level. The increase in Atlantic sea surface temperatures over recent decades have probably been sufficient, according to my thumb-suck estimate that I strongly suspect is close to correct, to make about half the hurricanes that would have existed anyway jump up one category. Then, when hurricanes get stronger, the amount of damage they can do goes up exponentially. So the sea surface temperature increases we've see with global warming easily explain the fact that we've had more hurricanes overall, and stronger ones, over the last twenty or thirty years than during the previous years back to when the data are still pretty good.

Second, the science says this will get worse. There is one 2007 study (by Vecci and Soden, in Geophysical Research Letters) that suggests that maybe in the Atlantic, smaller size hurricanes will be less likely to form because of increased vertical wind shear, but that study does not mean much for larger or stronger hurricanes. This decade old study is constantly cited as evidence that global warming will not increase hurricanes in the Atlantic. Other studies show that the overall amount of hurricane activity, and the potential higher end of hurricane strength, and the size, and the speed at which they form, and the amount of water they can contain, and possibly the likelihood of a hurricane stalling right after landfall, go up. Up. Up. Up. One study says down and that word, "down" it resonates across the land like a sonic boom. The other studies say we can expect, and to varying degrees already see, up, up, up, up, up, and denial makes words like "up" and "more" and "worse" and "exasperated" dangerously quiet. Please don't fall into that trap. Oh, by the way,the one study that says "down" has not been replicated and though experts feel it has some merit, it is far from proven and there are reasons to suggest it my be problematic.

Comparing the 2017 Atlantic Hurricane Season to Other Years

Funny thing about hurricanes: They exist whether or not they menace you. Every year a certain number of hurricanes (usually) form and wander about in the Atlantic ocean for a while, maybe hitting some boats, but otherwise doing little more than causing some big waves to eventually reach beaches in the Caribbean or the eastern US.

This year, we've had four major hurricanes so far. Harvey, which maxed out as a Cat 4, ravaged and flooded Texas and Louisiana. Irma, maxing at Cat 5, ravaged Florida after wiping out islands in the Leewards and doing great damage to Cuba and elsewhere in the Caribbean. Maria, maxing out as a Cat 5, did major damage in the Leewards and notably wiped out Puerto Rico. So, four Major Hurricanes formed in the Atlantic and hit something major.

Meanwhile, Jose, another Major hurricane at Cat 4 status, still spinning about in the North Atlantic, is one of those that hit nothing. And that's all so far this year.

Last year, there were almost exactly the same number of named storms in total (so far) and just like 2017, 2016 had four major hurricanes.

You remember Matthew, which scraped the Atlantic coast and was rather damaging. But do you remember Gaston (Cat 3)? Nicole (Cat 4)? Otto (Cat 3)?

Gaston and Nicole wandered about in the Atlantic and hit nothing. Otto was for real, it hit Central America, but not the US, so from the US perspective, it counts as a non-hitting hurricane. Also, it was only barely cat 3 and weakened quickly.

From 2000 to 2016, inclusively, we have had an average of 15 named storms per year, with a minimum of 8 and a maximum of 28, with most years being between 10 and 16. So far 2017 has had 13 named storms. We may have a couple more. So, likely, we will be right in the middle.

For the same period, the number of hurricanes has ranged from 2 to 15 with an average of about 7. This year, we have had ... wait for it ... 7. We may or ma not get another one, not very likely two more. In other words, this is an average year for the number of hurricanes.

For the same period, the number of major hurricanes ranges from 0 (though only one year ad zero, it is more typical to have 2 in a low year) to 7, but again, 7 is extreme. It is usually from 2-5. The average is just over 3. This year, we have four. That's pretty typical.

So, within the context that the last couple of decades has had a somewhat higher than average frequency of hurricanes, and probably more strong ones than previous decades, this we had a typical year this year.

Why does it feel different? Why is it in fact difference, with respect to the horror of it all? Because we had more landfalls, and more serious landfalls.

Keep in mind that Harvey could have hit Houston differently and done more damage. Keep in mind that Cuba beat up Irma, then Irma failed to strike Florida in just the right way to do maximum damage. Keep in mind that after wiping out Puerto Rico, Maria swerved quickly out to sea. In other words, keep in mind that this year could have been much worse than it was.

This is the point that you must understand: Any year can be like this year, or worse. And, with increasing sea surface temperatures and other global warming related factors, worse still.

gregladen Sun, 09/24/2017 - 03:16

Tags

>So, four Major Hurricanes formed in the Atlantic and hit something major.

You only listed three.

You say a decade before 1980, and then start in 1972.

Maria was a category 5, not a 4. And there is no doubt that these hurricanes were turbo-charged by climate change.

The Quibbler quibbles at #1 whilst their present could be his future.

Meanwhile; the world's most powerful toddler ... er um .... toddles having taken on sports people ignoring his other responsibilities.

Jeff Harvey #2:

You are correct that Maria was a category 5 storm.

However, when it hit Puerto Rico, it was a category 4 storm.

I am sure that is what Greg meant.

Maria, maxing out as a Cat 4

Maria was a Cat 5 storm when it hit Dominica. It maintaned its strength until it underwent 'eyewall replacement cycle and weakened just off the coast of Puerto Rico.

There has been a CAT 5 which hit Puerto Rico; That was in 1928.

Maria was indeed a Cat 5, I misspoke or misnumbered or something.

> the world’s most powerful toddler … er um …. toddles having taken on sports people ignoring his other responsibilities.

He is a dictator obsessed with power and ego. Now he has made his opponents kneel before him.

Rick, when it obliterated Dominica it was Category 5. I don't want to quibble, but indeed this is by far the worst hurricane season on record and its just over half way through. The oceans are very warm. I don't see the luke-warmers saying much these days. All of those alleged benefits of AGW they keep bleating on about. Utter tosh. Non-linear responses in natural systems are never factored in.

Jeff #8:

The luke-warmers aren't saying much because there is nothing surprising about another category 5 hurricane.

Cat 5 have happened before and they will happen again.

Meanwhile, the world has been warming for 20,000 years and the oceans have risen 120 meters over that time.

All but the last 8 inches (or so) of sea level rise supposedly completely natural and some fraction of the 8 inches due to humans.

I am pretty sure that humans should be able to move to higher ground over the next century or two - so I am not that concerned.

The ever obtuse RickA plays the classic same ol' same ol' nothing to see here move on shtick whilst mother nature is become decidedly irate about continued warming, more rapid than for millennia, mostly in the oceans and melting of the cryosphere.

On hurricanes with a snippet on SLR:

One study indicates that hurricanes are intensifying more quickly than 30 years ago. Of course, there are other factors that can limit how powerful a hurricane becomes, such as how the wind changes directions and speed upward through the atmosphere.

Warming oceans and melting land ice have also caused about seven inches of global sea level rise over the past century. This gives storm surge —the coastal flooding that hits suddenly before landfall — a springboard to send floodwaters higher and push further inland than they used to. That in turn can cause more damage to infrastructure and puts additional lives at risk.

There has already been an increase in frequency and intensity of the strongest hurricanes in the Atlantic since the satellite era began. Looking forward, hurricanes are projected to produce more rain.

Source.

And that is just for starters!

Meanwhile, the world has been warming for 20,000 years...

You may want to assert that, but you are wrong. The Holocene maximum occurred about 7,000 years ago, and the planet has been steadily cooling ever since - up to the advent of the Industrial Revolution, that is...

Marcott's et al 2013 RegEM reconstruction puts the mean global temperature at the time at a little less than 0.3 K over the HadCRU 1961-1990 global mean. At the start of the Industrail Revolution that had dropped 0.7 K, to around 0.4 K below the 1961-1990 global mean.

There's a straightforward explanation for the consistently decreasing global temperature over the last 7 millenia, and that's the decrease in the Milanković forcing, which was approximately 470 Wm2 at the time of the Holocene maximum, and which has dropped by about 40 Wm2 to 430 Wm2 today.

Oh, and the development of agriculture and the advent of large scale land clearing, both of which started approximately contemporaneously with the Holocene maximum, have put a brake on cooling, due to a reduction in orbital forcing. Salinger (2006) puts the value at about 0.8 K. Ruddiman (2014) puts it at 0.9 to 1.2 K. He also asserts an albedo change from clearing that results in 0.2-0.3 K cooling.

Take all that into account and you'll understand (assuming that you possess the intellectual faculty) that we should probably now be at least 1.0-1.2 K below the HadCRU 1961-1990 baseline, which makes a mockery of your "warming for 20,000 years."

Instead, last year's global mean temperature was about 1 K above the 1961-1990 baseline, and this is the result of a combination of agriculture/clearing, fossil CO₂ emission, and aerosol negative forcing.

The climate should be cooling but instead it's warming, rapidly, and humans are the cause. And humans have manifested about 2 K of warming to date.

...and the oceans have risen 120 meters over that time.

As with temperature, the oceans should be starting to fall, but given the enormous heat capacity of water we'd probably not expect to yet see much in the way of dropping sea level compared to the Holocen maximum. That said, the preindustrial human-caused warming is probably going to be responsible for about the same amount of sea level rise that we've caused since the Industrial Revolution... We've realised about 22 cm of rise since 1880, so we may already have manifested what is effectively around half a metre of sea level rise.

And that high heat capacity of water that I mentioned earlier is masking much more sea level rise that's already fixed into the system. Further, given that atmospheric CO₂ concentration is increasing at an accelerating rate, we're baking in many metres of sea level rise, even if no one alive today will be around to see it. Levermann et al suggest 2.3 metres of sea level rise per 1.0 K, and Foster and Rohling (2013) calculate that a rise in temperature of 2.0 K over the 20th century baseline will see sea level rise more than nine metres over the Holocene plateau.

You may be cavalier about misrepresenting the numbers, and cavalierly dimissing the artificially-low figures that you manufacture, but anyone with a conscience and an ethical code should be far more concnered about what we're doing to the planet than the apathy that you display.

>up to the advent of the Industrial Revolution, that is…

Also the start of big improvement in standard of living. A reasonable tradeoff.

Bernard J #11 says "Instead, last year’s global mean temperature was about 1 K above the 1961-1990 baseline . . ."

I don't think that is correct.

Using your own numbers (and Marcott 2013) we are 0.6C above the 1961-1990 baseline. The Marcott 2013 chart shows we started from -0.4C at the little ice age and rose 1C to 0.6C above zero (the baseline).

So as you said, according to Marcott 2013, we are now 0.3C above the mean global temperature of about 7000 years ago.

So I see that we are 0.6C above the 1961-1990 baseline.

We are 1C above the low temperature of the little ice age, and perhaps that is what you meant to say.

That 0.3C we are above the peak temperature of 7000 years ago is very tiny - just a little more than the .2C warming caused by the 2015-2016 el nino (which we are now cooling off from).

My point is that the sky is not falling.

I am more worried about what turning off fossil fuels will do to the population of the world than I am about the warming we are causing.

Many pretend we can generate 100% of our power with renewable - but they are not correct.

We could and should go nuclear - that is the best baseload power which doesn't produce carbon emissions. That is what I advocate.

Until the world catches up to the nuclear reality (that we have to go nuclear in a big way), we will continue to burn fossil fuels - and I am ok with that. That is what the world has chosen to do, given the choice between technologically available nuclear and pie in the sky 100% renewable. Eventually, the majority will get it, and we will build lots and lots of nuclear power plants - but we are not there yet.

In the meantime don't panic.

#12

Sheesh! Go talk to people across the world affected by extreme weather events about that and see how long you live.

It isn't a reasonable trade of for a numpty like MikeN to live the life of Riley whilst others get swallowed up in mud slides, have their homes flooded for the second, third or whatever time, or blown out into the ocean, etc., etc., etc.

One thing you do do well MikeN is crass.

#13 Unbelievable, round the houses we go again.

BTW the sky is falling but the nature of that and the mechanism is too complex for you to grasp.

Lionel A #14:

Do a poll and ask everybody in the world if they want to live like those poor people in Puerto Rico (no power).

I can assure you that everybody who has power wants to keep it, and those without power want it.

Sure - it would be great if we could generate all our power requirements without using fossil fuels - but that is not possible today (without a giant expansion of nuclear that is).

Maybe we will invent a non-nuclear form of baseload power generation which doesn't generate carbon emissions. That is one advantage of having 8 billion minds available to work on this problem. We might invent our way out of the current minor issue we have.

"You may want to assert that, but you are wrong."

That is rickA's stock in trade, but he isn't wrong due to accident: he's wrong intentionally.

"You may be cavalier about misrepresenting the numbers, and cavalierly dimissing the artificially-low figures that you manufacture"
Again, stock in trade.

", but anyone with a conscience and an ethical code "

Bingo -- the two biggest thing he's not only demonstrated he lacks but views as weaknesses in people.

Similar results for GDP per capita and other measures.

http://www.drmichaeljoyner.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/global-life-e…

dean #17:

I am right.

It is warmer than it was 20000 years ago.

The ocean has risen 120 meters over the last 20,000 years.

About 98% of that is totally natural (all but at most 22 cm per Bernard).

Relax - don't worry.

Bernard J #11 says “Instead, last year’s global mean temperature was about 1 K above the 1961-1990 baseline . . .”

I don’t think that is correct.

Using your own numbers (and Marcott 2013) we are 0.6C above the 1961-1990 baseline. The Marcott 2013 chart shows we started from -0.4C at the little ice age and rose 1C to 0.6C above zero (the baseline).

So as you said, according to Marcott 2013, we are now 0.3C above the mean global temperature of about 7000 years ago.

We're both not correct, actually, but you more so than me. And in my defense I was typing at 2:00 am after already losing text once to a Firefox crash*, so I didn't make clear in my second attempt my comment about warming over the last half century.

I'd originally made reference to the fact that Marcott et al use HadCRU as a reference baseline for their work, but that Berkeley Earth is probably the best construction of temperature change over the modern period. Berkeley Earth put warming from the 1951-1980 baseline through to 2016 at 0.94 K, which is the basis for my original comment that last year’s global mean temperature was about 1 K above the baseline. I definitely screwed up with not retyping my original comparison of HadCRU and BE (mea culpa), which orphaned to the HadCRU baseline, but that doesn't substantively change the actual numbers.

Which are:

1) Prior to the Industrial Revolution, mean global temperature had dropped by about 0.7 K

2) From 1000 Ad to 1750 AD global temperature was dropping at a rate of approximately 0.8 K per millennium. On that trajectory the planet would be expected to have cooled ~ 0.2 K since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, although it's entirely plausible that forcing would have diminished to that of the background rate for the the last 7 millennia, which would still result in cooling since the commencement of the Industrial Revolution. Analysis of all forcings gives no indication that significant 'natural' net warming would be expected over the last two and a half centuries.

3) Pre-IR human carbon emissions caused about 1.0 K of net warming, at central estimate.

4) Berkeley Earth indicates that last year's global temperature was about 1 K (0.94 to two significant figures) over the BE 1951-1980 baseline, and 1.29 K higher compared to the 1850-1900 baseline (which will still be higher than the expected global temperature sans Industrial Revolution.

5) Human-caused planetary warming amounts to a little over 2.0 K according to Ruddiman et al* in 2014 (see especially the box in figure 3), and given the two record warm years since then, this is a conservative and now outdated estimate. Temperature analyses separate to Ruddiman's give a similar estimate.

These are the numbers that matter, RickA, and not your mendacious smoke and mirrors tripe intended to gull an unsuspecting audience into thinking that the human impact is somehow just a fraction of a degree of warming.

Given that you seem to be refractory to understanding the literature, you should start here:

*Does pre-industrial warming double the anthropogenic total?

According to the early anthropogenic hypothesis, land clearing and agriculture caused emissions of greenhouse gases to begin to alter climate as early as 7000 years ago (Ruddiman, 2003). Climate-model simulations based on the CO2 and CH4 concentrations proposed in the hypothesis suggest that humans caused a global mean warming of 0.9 to 1.5°C before the start of the industrial era. Additional pre-industrial effects on land surface reflectance (changes in albedo resulting from forest clearance) may have cooled climate enough to cancel 0.2 to 0.3°C of this warming effect, leaving a net early anthropogenic warming contribution of between 0.7°C and 1.2°C. This proposed early anthropogenic warming is comparable with, and likely larger than, the measured 0.85°C warming during the last 150 years. If the simulations based on the early anthropogenic hypothesis are correct, total anthropogenic warming has been twice or more the industrial amount registered to date.

About 98% of that is totally natural (all but at most 22 cm per Bernard).

Show your calculations.

You're excluding the impact of pre-Industrial Revolution, human-caused warming, and you're ignoring the sea level rise already that is committed to as a result of the significant thermal inertia resulting from the high heat capacity of water, but that has yet to manifest.

I stand by my assertion. The net amount of sea level rise resulting from human carbon emissions since the Holocene maximum is probably around 45 cm, or 0.5 metre to the nearest significant figure, and given the inescapable commitment to further sea level rise even with today's atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, that 0.5 m SRL is a conservative estimate.

If you disagree, use actual data to refute me.

About 98% of that is totally natural...

There's also the issue of your straw man.

The amount of sea level rise following the last glacial maximum through to the Holocene maximum is largely irrelevant to modern human society. Our civilisation's development has almost entirely occurred within the last 7 millennia, during which time the global mean sea levels has been effectively at plateau. Much of our infrastructure is perched at the ocean's edge for this reason, and it is this disproportionate present of human infrastructure along coastlines that makes sea level rise such an issue.

So it doesn't matter how many dozens of metres the seas rose several millennia ago - what's important is that much of our developed infrastructure is within metres of the current sea level, and we've put enough CO₂ into the atmosphere to cause warming that will raise that sea level by metres over the next few centuries.

Your penchant for using fallacious lawyer logic to paint over the facts won't change the implacable unfolding import of what we're doing to the planet.

Relax – don’t worry.

Another gauche declaration from the master of such.

Oh but there is an element of truth because the fifth major Atlantic hurricane this year is expending itself out at sea so no worries .............. except for those already lashed by Harvey, Irma, Jose and Maria.

After nudging ever closer to Category 3 strength for almost a day, Hurricane Lee finally made the cut on Wednesday morning. Lee’s top sustained winds were 115 mph at 11 am EDT, making it a low-end Cat 3 storm. Lee is this year’s fifth major hurricane in the Atlantic, after Harvey, Irma, Jose, and Maria. Those four predecessors all hit Category 4 or 5 strength, and all of them but Jose proved to be devastating, multi-billion-dollar storms. Fortunately, Lee is flexing its muscle far from land in the central North Atlantic, close to 500 miles east-southeast of Bermuda.

https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/maria-pulling-away-north-carolina-lee…">Source.

And it looks like we could have our collars felt here in the UK this weekend as the remnants of Lee, then Maria and maybe a third storm brewing up off the coast of Canada roll in. Should we brace ourselves for a repeat of the 2013-2014 season?

Give up your myopia Rick it makes you look bad. Get a global perspective of the effects that are in train due to human activities and the deleterious effects upon millions this is already having and which will get worse.

Study Tony Juniper's book What's Really Happening To Our Planet? which is sort of an update on the earlier excellent book by James Bruges 'The Little Earth Book' which is still worth a read.

Your insouciance about the suffering and fate of millions makes you look sociopathic and studying those two books may work a cure.

Oops. Darned html and no preview!

Relax – don’t worry.

Another gauche declaration from the master of such.

After nudging ever closer to Category 3 strength for almost a day, Hurricane Lee finally made the cut on Wednesday morning. Lee’s top sustained winds were 115 mph at 11 am EDT, making it a low-end Cat 3 storm. Lee is this year’s fifth major hurricane in the Atlantic, after Harvey, Irma, Jose, and Maria. Those four predecessors all hit Category 4 or 5 strength, and all of them but Jose proved to be devastating, multi-billion-dollar storms. Fortunately, Lee is flexing its muscle far from land in the central North Atlantic, close to 500 miles east-southeast of Bermuda.

Source.

And it looks like we could have our collars felt here in the UK this weekend as the remnants of Lee, then Maria and maybe a third storm brewing up off the coast of Canada roll in. Should we brace ourselves for a repeat of the 2013-2014 season?

Give up your myopia Rick it makes you look bad. Get a global perspective of the effects that are in train due to human activities and the deleterious effects upon millions this is already having and which will get worse.

Study Tony Juniper's book What's Really Happening To Our Planet? which is sort of an update on the earlier excellent book by James Bruges 'The Little Earth Book' which is still worth a read.

Your insouciance about the suffering and fate of millions makes you look sociopathic and studying those two books may work a cure.

Lionel #24:

Thank you for worrying about how others perceive me.

Although it is unnecessary, as I do not care if you (or others) think I am sociopathic.

If you choose to worry about the weather, that is your choice.

I say - enjoy worrying (since it seems to make you happy)!

You're avoiding the numbers RickA.

You've made statements above and elsewhere that are divergent from those that science presents, and on the basis of your stated divergences you make assumptions that there is little risk from humans warming the planet.

Can you please detail the basis for your own particular framing of the human impact on the Earth's climate, with reference to all of the relevant empirical data? Unsubstantiated assertion might work for lawyers who hope that the opposing counsel will miss the errors of logic and fact, but here we expect a basic level of explained analysis and due diligence in addressing all germane variables.

Harvey Floods Houston, Irma Makes History

milhayser — Fri, 15 Sep 2017 12:12:25 +0000

Harvey Floods Houston, Irma Makes History

Hurricane Harvey visited a near-biblical deluge upon Houston, dropping over 40 inches of rain on parts of the city. The situation resulted from warmer ocean waters, more moisture in the atmosphere, and Houston's geography along with its preparedness for the disaster. Greg Laden shows hotter sea surface temperatures in the Tropics and the Gulf of Mexico allowed Harvey to gain extra strength as it formed and re-formed on its way to the United States. In another post, Greg asks if Houston's infrastructure could have been better-prepared for this type of rainfall, suggesting that "Houston is proud of its Libertarian zoning laws" even though, as Ethan Siegel writes on Starts With a Bang, a stalled hurricane pouring down water "should be exactly what you’d expect for a city located where Houston is."

On the other hand, while the city was swamped to the tune of perhaps $50 billion in property damage, very few people died from the catastrophe. William M. Connolley points out that global warming "made the storm stronger and pushed the rainfall up to 'unprecedented'; but the CO₂ used to make the infrastructure makes the deaths fewer." Dozens of people are confirmed dead by Harvey's hand, but a similar cyclone killed over 200 people in Sri Lanka and India in May.

On the heels of Harvey, Hurricane Irma swept up the Caribbean islands and on to Florida, causing more tens of billions of dollars in damage but failing to precipitate the doomsday scenario that many in the media foresaw. On Stoat, William M. Connolley asks if there's any way to prove a relationship between global warming and these hurricanes, and offers up a wager for 2018. Meanwhile, Ethan Siegel notes that Harvey and Irma mark an historical milestone, as "two Category 4 (or stronger) hurricanes made landfall in the USA in the same year for the first time." Ethan's stance is unequivocal: "This is not simply a bad year or an unlucky coincidence, but is an effect of a planet that has been artificially warmed by human activity."

milhayser Fri, 09/15/2017 - 08:12

Tags

Top fossil fuel producers caused half of global warming, third of sea level rise

gregladen — Thu, 07 Sep 2017 07:02:47 +0000

Top fossil fuel producers caused half of global warming, third of sea level rise

I'll just put this item from UCS here for your interest:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Study Finds Top Fossil Fuel Producers’ Emissions Responsible for as Much as Half of Global Surface Temperature Increase, Roughly 30 Percent of Global Sea Level Rise

Findings Provide New Data to Hold Companies Responsible for Climate Change

WASHINGTON (September 7, 2017)—A first-of-its-kind study published today in the scientific journal Climatic Change links global climate changes to the product-related emissions of specific fossil fuel producers, including ExxonMobil and Chevron. Focusing on the largest gas, oil and coal producers and cement manufacturers, the study calculated the amount of sea level rise and global temperature increase resulting from the carbon dioxide and methane emissions from their products as well as their extraction and production processes.

The study quantified climate change impacts of each company’s carbon and methane emissions during two time periods: 1880 to 2010 and 1980 to 2010. By 1980, investor-owned fossil fuel companies were aware of the threat posed by their products and could have taken steps to reduce their risks and share them with their shareholders and the general public.

“We’ve known for a long time that fossil fuels are the largest contributor to climate change,” said Brenda Ekwurzel, lead author and director of climate science at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). “What’s new here is that we’ve verified just how much specific companies’ products have caused the Earth to warm and the seas to rise.”

The study builds on a landmark 2014 study by Richard Heede of the Climate Accountability Institute, one of the co-authors of the study published today. Heede’s study, which also was published in Climatic Change, determined the amount of carbon dioxide and methane emissions that resulted from the burning of products sold by the 90 largest investor- and state-owned fossil fuel companies and cement manufacturers.

Ekwurzel and her co-authors inputted Heede’s 2014 data into a simple, well-established climate model that captures how the concentration of carbon emissions increases in the atmosphere, trapping heat and driving up global surface temperature and sea level. The model allowed Ekwurzel et al. to ascertain what happens when natural and human contributions to climate change, including those linked to the companies’ products, are included or excluded.

The study found that:

Emissions traced to the 90 largest carbon producers contributed approximately 57 percent of the observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide, nearly 50 percent of the rise in global average temperature, and around 30 percent of global sea level rise since 1880.

Emissions linked to 50 investor-owned carbon producers, including BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Peabody, Shell and Total, were responsible for roughly 16 percent of the global average temperature increase from 1880 to 2010, and around 11 percent of the global sea level rise during the same time frame.

Emissions tied to the same 50 companies from 1980 to 2010, a time when fossil fuel companies were aware their products were causing global warming, contributed approximately 10 percent of the global average temperature increase and about 4 percent sea level rise since 1880.

Emissions traced to 31 majority state-owned companies, including Coal India, Gazprom, Kuwait Petroleum, Pemex, Petroleos de Venezuela, National Iranian Oil Company and Saudi Aramco, were responsible for about 15 percent of the global temperature increase and approximately 7 percent of the sea level rise between 1880 and 2010.

“Until a decade or two ago, no corporation could be held accountable for the consequences of their products’ emissions because we simply didn’t know enough about what their impacts were,” said Myles Allen, a study co-author and professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford in England. “This study provides a framework for linking fossil fuel companies’ product-related emissions to a range of impacts, including increases in ocean acidification and deaths caused by heat waves, wildfires and other extreme weather-related events. We hope that the results of this study will inform policy and civil society debates over how best to hold major carbon producers accountable for their contributions to the problem.”

The question of who is responsible for climate change and who should pay for its related costs has taken on growing urgency as climate impacts worsen and become costlier. In New York City alone, officials estimate that it will cost more than $19 billion to adapt to climate change. Globally, adaptation cost projections are equally astronomical. The U.N. Environment Programme estimates that developing countries will need $140 billion to $300 billion annually by 2030 and $280 billion to $500 billion annually by 2050 to adapt.

The debate over responsibility for climate mitigation and adaptation has long focused on the “common but differentiated responsibilities” of nations, a framework used for the Paris climate negotiations. Attention has increasingly turned to non-state actors, particularly the major fossil fuel producers.

“At the start of the Industrial Revolution, very few people understood that carbon dioxide emissions progressively undermine the stability of the climate as they accumulate in the atmosphere, so there was nothing blameworthy about selling fossil fuels to those who wanted to buy them,” said Henry Shue, professor of politics and international relations at the University of Oxford and author of a commentary on the ethical implications of the Ekwurzel et al. paper that was published simultaneously in Climatic Change. “But circumstances have changed radically in light of evidence that a number of investor-owned companies have long understood the harm of their products, yet carried out a decades-long campaign to sow doubts about those harms in order to ensure fossil fuels would remain central to global energy production. Companies knowingly violated the most basic moral principle of ‘do no harm,’ and now they must remedy the harm they caused by paying damages and their proportion of adaptation costs.”

Had ExxonMobil, for example, acted on its own scientists’ research about the risks of its products, climate change likely would be far more manageable today.

“Fossil fuel companies could have taken any number of steps, such as investing in clean energy or carbon capture and storage, but many chose instead to spend millions of dollars to try to deceive the public about climate science to block sensible limits on carbon emissions,” said Peter Frumhoff, a study co-author and director of science and policy at UCS. “Taxpayers, especially those living in vulnerable coastal communities, should not have to bear the high costs of these companies’ irresponsible decisions by themselves.”

Ekwurzel et al.’s study may inform approaches for juries and judges to calculate damages in such lawsuits as ones filed by two California counties and the city of Imperial Beach in July against 37 oil, gas and coal companies, claiming they should pay for damages from sea level rise. Likewise, the study should bolster investor campaigns to force fossil fuel companies to disclose their legal vulnerabilities and the risks that climate change poses to their finances and material assets.

gregladen Thu, 09/07/2017 - 03:02

Tags

Harvey The Hurricane: Truly Climate Change Enhanced

gregladen — Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:45:45 +0000

Harvey The Hurricane: Truly Climate Change Enhanced

Harvey the Invisible Rabbit: Did not exist.

This is a picture of some men.

Since they are men, they have some abilities. They can, for example, knock each other over, and they can play with balls. This is what men do, and this is what these men can do.

This is a picture of some professional NFL foodball players.

They are also men. They can also knock each other over, and they can also play with balls. But the NFL football players are much better at knocking each other over, and you wouldn't believe how great they are at playing with balls.

They are NFL enhanced. They are trained, embiggened with special diets, and they are clad with armor and vibrant, often scary, colors.

This is a picture of a hurricane from 1938.

It was a big one; It did lots of damage when it slammed into New England and New York.

A hurricane is a large storm that forms in the tropics, and sometimes hits land. The energy from a hurricane comes from a combination of the earth's spin, trade winds, and so on, but mainly, from the heat on the surface of the sea. The rain that falls from the hurricane also comes mainly from the sea surface indirectly, and any water that evaporates into the atmosphere.

This is a picture of Harvey the Hurricane, the remnants of which are still circulating around in Texas.

Harvey is a lot like the 1938 hurricane, in that it formed in the tropics, in the Atlantic, and was a big spinny thing. It got its energy in the same way, and formed in the same way, and both slammed into land and scared the crap out of everybody.

But they are different, the 1938 Hurricane and Harvey the Hurricane. How are they different? Have a look at this map:

The pairs of photos above show "then" and "now" for two different things (men and hurricanes). This map shows both then and now in the same graphic. This map represents the current sea surface temperature anomalies, meaning, how much warmer or cooler the current sea temperatures are compared to the same time of year but at some time in the past, averaged over a long period, in this case, from 1971-2000. Global warming was well underway during that period, so present sea surface temperature readings that are above that baseline are not only high but are actually very high, because the baseline is high.

In this map, red is more, blue is less. Look at all the nearly ubiquitous more-ness in sea surface temperatures around the world. That causes the atmosphere across the entire globe to potentially contain much more water vapor than it could have contained during that that baseline period. Look at the sea surface temperature anomalies for the gulf of Mexico, where Harvey formed. They are high. This means that any hurricane that formed over that extra warm water will be stronger, and any tropical storm system that occurs pretty much anywhere on this map (or round the other side of the Earth as well, for that matter) will contain more water, than it would if it existed and all else was equal several decades ago.

This is a picture of a Unicorn.

A unicorn poops rainbows and pees mimosas. Or so I'm told. This is another view of Harvey the Hurricane.

What is the difference between the unicorn and Harvey? Harvey is real, and the unicorn is not.

I won't quote you or give you links. Why? Because I find this whole thing a bit too embarrassing. But here is the thing. Otherwise intelligent and well informed individuals have stated in various outlets, including major media, and including twitter, that it is simply inappropriate to claim that Harvey the Hurricane is in any way global warming enhanced.

This is wrong. There is no such thing as a storm of any kind that is not a function of the current climatology. The current climatology has widespread and persistent, and in many cases alarmingly high, sea surface temperature anomalies. There will not be a tropical storm, including hurricanes, that escape the physics and poop out rainbows and pee mimosas. They will all be real. They will all have greater power and more moisture than they otherwise would have, had they formed decades ago before the extreme global warming we have experience so far.

There was a time when Harvey was a rabbit, an invisible rabbit only seen by a delusional character in a movie, played by Jimmy Stewart. Today, we have Harvey the Unenhanced Storm, playing that role. It is a fiction, something seen by a few but that is no more real than the above depicted unicorn.

As I was writing this post, Michael Mann posted an item in the Guardian that makes this case.

He says (click here for the whole story):

Sea level rise attributable to climate change – some of which is due to coastal subsidence caused by human disturbance such as oil drilling – is more than half a foot (15cm) over the past few decades ... That means the storm surge was half a foot higher than it would have been just decades ago, meaning far more flooding and destruction.

... sea surface temperatures in the region have risen about 0.5C (close to 1F) over the past few decades from roughly 30C (86F) to 30.5C (87F), which contributed to the very warm sea surface temperatures (30.5-31C, or 87-88F).

... there is a roughly 3% increase in average atmospheric moisture content for each 0.5C of warming. Sea surface temperatures in the area where Harvey intensified were 0.5-1C warmer than current-day average ... That means 3-5% more moisture in the atmosphere.

That large amount of moisture creates the potential for much greater rainfalls and greater flooding. The combination of coastal flooding and heavy rainfall is responsible for the devastating flooding that Houston is experiencing.

... there is a deep layer of warm water that Harvey was able to feed upon when it intensified at near record pace as it neared the coast....

Harvey was almost certainly more intense than it would have been in the absence of human-caused warming, which means stronger winds, more wind damage and a larger storm surge...

Mann mentions other effects as well, but I'll let you go read them.

The extra heat at depth Mann mentions is now recognized as responsible for the extra bigness and badness of some other famous hurricanes as well, such as Katrina and Haiyan. Harvey might be a member of a small but growing class of hurricanes, deep-heat hurricanes I'll call them for now, that simply did not exist prior to global warming of recent decades. Further research is needed on this, but that's the direction we are heading.

Climate scientist Kevin Trenberth recently noted that "The human contribution can be up to 30 percent or so up to the total rainfall coming out of the storm,”

Aside from Michael Mann's Guardian article, he has this facebook post making the same argument.

Harvey the Hurricane is real, and so was the 1938 Hurricane. Climate change enhancement of Harvey is real, but unicorns are not. Sadly.

I really thought we had stopped hearing this meme, that "you can never attribute a given weather event to climate change." But, apparently not. That is a statement that is technically true in the same way that we can't really attribute an Alberta Clipper (a kind of snow storm) to the spin of the Earth. Yet, somehow, the spin of the Earth is why Alberta Clippers come from Alberta. In other words, the statement is a falsehood that can never be evaluated because it is framed incorrectly. Here is the correct framing:

Climate is weather long term, and weather is climate here and now. The climate has changed. Ergo ... you fill in the blank. Hit: Unicorns are not involved.

gregladen Mon, 08/28/2017 - 07:45

Tags

My three volume study the Apocalyps of Earth (in Dutch, partly in English), concerning predictions of Kees de Haar, received in 1984 - 2005, about inter alia a worldwide climate change (is earth change) inclusive huge storms, like these in present time, will be published very soon. How will people cope with climatechange?

See also the present massive flooding of Bangladesh. Watch it globally... .

Watch also the Arctic and the Antarctic. Read Paul, Corinthians, verses 26-29.

My three volume study the Apocalyps of Earth (in Dutch, partly in English), concerning predictions of Kees de Haar

Is pure bullshit, as has been pointed out.

HEY!! BOOGERS!!!!!

Well I'm ecstatic to see you back! You can tell us all where these dirigible planets beyond the understanding of earthbound science are now we're past that 22nd August date we were all exhorted to wait for!

I've been running in and out of hospitals today (and will do so again in a second so can't get any information) visiting people so have only gotten snippets of news. I thought I heard that Harvey had moved back out over the Gulf and would be gathering more strength? Possible? Fact or misguided statement? If possible, common?

Likely, not at all unheard of

"Corinthians"

Shouldaknown.

Any fairytale you'll cling to, won't you.

But, hey, we'll forgive you if you spill the beans on the location of the dirigible plants we were to be agog for.

What to think of the collapse of the tundra's in Canada and other states, the output of CO2 from of the sleeping giant? The agreement of Paris 2015 is falling too short. Denial of Climate Change is irresponsible, to say the least.

Wow, you think you laugh... Pull your head in.

NOOOO!!!!!! BOOOGERS!!! NOOO!!! You forgot to tell us all where these dirigible planets beyond the ability of earthling science to explain are!

You went all mysteriouso when we asked at the time and just told us to wait and prepare.

We prepared.

We waited.

And we found nothing.

You're our only hope of alien science discoveries on the 22nd August! Don't take that hope away from us!!!!

Indeed Greg: Likely, not at all unheard of.

dean@6: The center of Harvey has indeed moved offshore, but a substantial portion of the storm's circulation remains over land, including the Houston metropolitan area. Slight strengthening is possible, but the proximity of the center to land will limit that strengthening. Near-shore waters along the Gulf coast simply aren't that deep. NWS is forecasting a second landfall on Wednesday, closer to the Houston/Galveston area; tropical storm warnings are in effect for the upper Texas coast into extreme southwest Louisiana. Meanwhile, a lot more rain will fall on southeast Texas into southwest Louisiana, and as winds are onshore, that water doesn't have anywhere to go.

My 9 was in response to #6

The energy input to Harvey from being over sea (partly) is expected to cause the weakening that should happen to not happen. So we get an extra day of the same storm. However, privately, there are some experts, including those who predicted the Cat 4 level, who are concerned that Harvey will go farther out and actually spin up a bit.

AAAAAAWWWWWWW.

Seems like one prediction of Great Boogers and his Astral Arsehole Chums has been falsified.

And it was one of the more likely ones. At least it is PHYSICALLY possible for aliens to have dirigible planets, even if it's not impossible for earth science to accept or explain the planetships. Unlike the crazy off axis spinning of the earth and the whooshing around of continental crustal plates of his other Astral Arsehole Projectiles shot out into etherspace.

I guess his book won't sell well.

No matter how hard he tries to peddle it on scienceblogs.

Ah, well, it was always a distant hope that at least one prediction of woomancers would come true.

And atop this, the Houston region has seen already, in the last couple of years not one, but TWO 500-year return period floods - only to be followed by THIS 10,000-year return flood as the climactic Act 3. What is the statistical chance of this grouping of floods happening in a two-year period WITHOUT the effect of climate change?

The likelihood of any one of these being enhanced by, or any two of these being juxtaposed by, climate change, is high - and the gathering together of three extraordinary flood events in such a short time is breathtaking if NOT for climate change.

Hoy Greg. Do ya perhaps wanna do an article on flooding in the
sub continent and if its climate change related.
The impact of current flooding is a couple of magnitudes higher
than the Texas, USA flooding.
It would seem eminitly worthy as a case study.
Cheers Li D Australia.

"Read Paul, Corinthians, verses 26-29."

I'd consider it, but (like unicorns and Harvey the rabbit) there is no book of "Corinthians" and the citation "verses 26-29" is meaningless.

One can not manipulate with facts of climate change = earth change. Climate change is a world wide phenomenon. In its process everything is relating to everything. Ridiculing climate change and facts won't change its course. Severe draughts, fires, melting of 'poles, glaciers tundra's', severe floods and storms are accelerating in appearance and strength. The agreement of Paris 2015 is falling too short. Denial of Climate Change is irresponsible, to say the least. It is not at all unheard of.

Li D, absolutely. Don't know if I can, this is s difficult week/summer for writing. I suspect others will cover that sooner, as info is being passed around. 1,200 or more dead, crops destroyed, etc across three countries, 45 million or so directly affected.

1,200 or more dead, crops destroyed, etc across three countries, 45 million or so directly affected.

Deniers:" WHERE'S THE CATASTROPHE!?!?!?!?"

On at least the rainfall rates Harvey is not the leader if you go back the 150 to 160 years of the total historical record in Tx.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/ofr03-193/cd_files/USGS_Storms/patton.htm
Note several other storms in this list with rainfall in the 40-50 inch range. Note in particular the 1913 flood which appears to have a higher crest at Richmond than the current one, which the newsmedia because of their lack of time did not cover (3 foot higher than the expected crest). Now this does call into question the height of the levees in the newer subdivisions around Richmond, said to be set at the 1% risk level with two events exceeding them in 104 years.
It appears that in Tx no matter the time of year or indeed if the storm is tropical or not it is possible to get high rainfall totals. (The paper above was written by the USGS btw). Now partly the issue is the luck of where the rain peaks were, and of course the much greater number of folks living in Tx than in the past. But if you include all hazards, were in the US can you avoid them, between earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards, what place in the US is immune for hazards?

"Note several other storms in this list with rainfall in the 40-50 inch range."

Harvey has set the continental rainfall record for a single storm of 49", and it hasn't stopped raining yet.

Good link, lyle.

1978 - August 2, 1978 - Tropical Storm Amelia formed in the western Gulf of Mexico, southeast of Brownsville the evening hours of July 30, 1978, never was officially raised to hurricane intensity, and made landfall near Port Isabel that evening.

As the system moved into the Texas Hill Country the evening of July 31, it dropped below depression intensity, a very dangerous phase in Texas flooding history. Showers and periods of heavy rain began falling west and northwest of San Antonio August 1st. Disastrous heavy rain fell the evening of Aug 1st/early morning hours of Aug 2nd.

Roland Manatt, in the Rocky Creek drainage along the divide between the Medina and Guadalupe Rivers, 8 mi northwest of Medina, measured 48 in. of rain in 52 hrs.

Hmm. At the point measured, That is a higher rain rate than with Harvey.

"At the point measured, That is a higher rain rate than with Harvey."

I see, you shift from total rainfall to rain rate to disprove what exactly? Good luck.

I think Harvey has officially beat all those records at this point, and it continues to rain in areas that already have the record beat.

(or maybe not, maybe just greater in terms of amount).

News from the national weather service

Tropical Storm Harvey, which first made landfall Friday as a Category 4 hurricane before weakening into a tropical storm that has circled over southeastern Texas for days, has broken the contiguous-U.S. rainfall record for a tropical storm, preliminary data shows, according to the National Weather Service.
Breaking the previous mark of 48 inches, Harvey recorded a preliminary 51.88 inches at Cedar Bayou, Texas, about 30 miles from Houston, the NWS reported.

Just as example of unintended consequences: just east of Houston and west of the Houston Ship Channel there is an area about 15 miles in diameter in which excessive groundwater withdrawal caused compaction of the clays which make up much of the subsurface. This resulted in ground surface subsidence up to about nine feet in the center of the area by 1978. In other words, human activity turned a sizeable part of the Gulf Coast into a bowl. Generally such subsidence is not completely reversible if reversible at all. Obviously, whatever is sited within this bowl likely got more flooding than it would otherwise have gotten.

I don't know whether the TX GOP - another branch of Science Denial Inc., has made it policy not to mention such things in planning the way that NC (I think it was) did in regard to global warming's influence on sea level rise. Once in power, the motto is: What you don't know can't hurt us.

#23: "... between earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards, what place in the US is immune for hazards?"

If you put it that way, none. However, not all hazards are equal in rate or severity. Blizzards are not usually the killers that floods (including hurricane/tropical storms) are and building-toppling earthquakes are much more rare than either floods or blizzards and do not occur outside of relatively few well-known zones (plate boundaries mostly).

The Gulf Coast region has a diverse share of natural hazards. They include hurricanes, river flooding, tornadoes, occasional ice storms (yes, ice storms), life-threatening combinations of summer heat and humidity, and disease-carrying mosquitos (west Nile virus lately). No earthquakes to speak of (although there was a low magnitude rattler I experienced some years ago) and no volcanism

I'm curious how Harvey compares to the storm that hit Galveston in 1900. The only immediately available comparisons look at storm damage but don't delve into the details of the storm (if they are even available). Does anyone have a link they could share?

There are two paramters that need to be considered with respect to flooding records: 1) the height of the flood (or the amount of rain that fell), and 2) the area over which the flood occurred (or the rain fell).

Even a flood of twice that of Harvey is irrelevant in the greater scheme of clmamte change things, if it occurred only in a small area.

Even a flood height of twice that of Harvey...

Walt, good question.

These days we say most tc deaths are caused by inland flooding from rain. But thousands died in the 1900 storm from a surge the city was not prepared for.

The storm was very different. It was a Cape Verde storm, while Harvey is a Gulf storm. Harvey is doing it's worse because it is slow and meandering. The 1900 storm came in fast, passed through fast, moved north fast, and returned to the Atlantic in Canada, where it sunk a bunch of ships.

The 1900 storm may or may not have been a major hurricane, and the same exact storm hitting Galveston would probably not be that devastating.

We didn't have satellites to see hurricanes develop miles out to sea days in advance of the event in 1900.

But the 1900 Galveston hurricane tracked near or across Cuba a few days before its Texas landfall, and there were weather stations in Cuba at the time. Cuban forecasters were saying that the storm was likely to strengthen rapidly and head for the Texas coast. American forecasters ignored the Cubans, saying that the storm was likely to recurve (which, climatologically speaking, most such storms do). The Cuban forecasts turned out to be pretty accurate for the time.

But the bigger problem was that American meteorologists of the day did not understand the physics of storm surge formation. They thought that the gentle slope of the continental shelf along the Gulf coast would inhibit storm surge. It's actually the opposite: low near-shore topographical relief actually favors higher storm surges, ceteris paribus. The result is that Galveston and other cities along the Texas coast were not prepared for the storm surge that actually happened.

Before the 1900 hurricane hit, Galveston, not Houston, was the primary city along the Texas coast, and in an alternate universe where they had been prepared for the storm surge, it might have remained so for quite a bit longer, at least until the land constraints inherent in being on a barrier island hit. In our universe, people soon realized that Galveston was too vulnerable to be a major port, so they dredged the Houston Ship Canal to allow that city to become the primary port in Texas.

52 inches now, and waning in Houston, mostly because Harvey has made its new landfall somewhat to the east therefore Houston's being spared for now, anyway.

I don't really see this event enhanced through 'global warming'. Perhaps it did get pumped up by crossing warmer water where the warmth in the column extended three hundred feet deep -- This 'anomaly' is nowhere near unprecedented -- in its path but the main reason for the flooding was due to synoptic influence of being stuck between two high pressure systems and central dense overcast intact because of lack of upper level wind shear.

But are you versed enough to expect to be able to see it, gilbert?

A good tracker will spot tracks you would never see, even if, once pointed out, they are clear to you, because the tracker has learned what to look for and you have not.

Would you accept it if it were known (by, say, god's post-it-note saying it was)? Because nobody here believes you ever would.

And have you even TRIED to see if it were? No. You have not even tried to do so.

So you are untrained, willfully against the idea and haven't even bothered. Your post therefore is meaningless and indicates nothing.

"This ‘anomaly’ is nowhere near unprecedented"

Really?

Greg Laden
August 29, 2017

I think Harvey has officially beat all those records at this point, and it continues to rain in areas that already have the record beat.

and

Bruce Jensen
August 28, 2017

And atop this, the Houston region has seen already, in the last couple of years not one, but TWO 500-year return period floods – only to be followed by THIS 10,000-year return flood as the climactic Act 3. What is the statistical chance of this grouping of floods happening in a two-year period WITHOUT the effect of climate change?

demands the question "What constitutes unprecedented, then?" be answered, gilbert.

"They thought that the gentle slope of the continental shelf along the Gulf coast would inhibit storm surge. It’s actually the opposite: low near-shore topographical relief actually favors higher storm surges"

Said something similar before, but "mike" (IIRC) did not like that and thought it meant that either sea level rise of a few inches was meaningless or that storm surges at high lunar tides were meaningless.

Gilbert, although the first of the following reports appears to be specific to the UK it has wider ramifications, as the title suggests. The other one is in three parts and each has something to contribute as to the reason Harvey was enhanced and then got stuck.

A global perspective on the recent storms and floods in the UK

The recent pause in warming. In three parts. Shame they had to include 'pause' in the title.

“What constitutes unprecedented, then?”

I was referencing the warm 'anomaly' between Corpus Cristi to half way to Galviston. Happens all the time; Storm just happened to be there this time. I'm not saying that the warmer water did not cause a strengthening of Harvey -- Just that it was not 'unprecedented' for it to be there and that warm.

" “What constitutes unprecedented, then?”

I was referencing the warm ‘anomaly’"

Really? Why?

See the title?

What does it say?

Is it "the warm anomaly"? No? What is it.

Go on, gilly, what is it. You can't see it, can you? You're blind.

"Happens all the time; "

Apparently it did not:

Greg Laden
August 29, 2017

I think Harvey has officially beat all those records at this point, and it continues to rain in areas that already have the record beat.

If it's record breaking, then it can't "happen all the time". Can it.

And if the storm is unprecedented, then what must the cause be? You can't bring yourself to it, can you. It's just not possible to force the realisation into your head, is it, never mind forcing that admission past your lips.

#35: "The 1900 storm may or may not have been a major hurricane, and the same exact storm hitting Galveston would probably not be that devastating."

And the reason is that after the storm, the remaining buildings were lifted and the island built up 12 feet higher than it was before. Then a seawall was built to provide another 5 feet or so of elevation. However, that protection does not extend to the western part of Galveston island which now is populated. For anyone living there the situation is just as it was in 1900.

The people in the city of Galveston have only one causeway to the mainland over which to flee plus a car ferry service which, of course, can not run in really bad weather. In 1900 there was one (maybe two) railroad bridges but they were destroyed.

"Isaac's Storm" by Erik Larson is a good book to read for personal accounts and other information about the Galveston hurricane and the state of weather forecasting at the time. It's frightening to read how vulnerable people are and how few options they have when they are in a hurricane.

If it’s record breaking, then it can’t “happen all the time”. Can it.

Again, I'm asserting that the warm water 'anomaly' which the storm passed over is not unprecedented.

It has been twelve years since a 'major' hurricane has struck the US. I guess one may discount more and stronger** storms that AGW was supposed to give us.

** I'm not arguing that warmer waters can't pump up a storm; just that it has been of little consequence the past twelve years. Well, there was Allison --

The storm dropped heavy rainfall along its path, peaking at over 40 inches (1,000 mm) in Texas. The worst flooding occurred in Houston, where most of Allison's damage occurred

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_Storm_Allison

That storm meandered around down there for fifteen days to give that 40 inches. but what was missing was favorable upper level support -- It was continually being sheared apart.

Oh, well. Something something natural variation. If there is a signal in there, I'm not picking it up above the noise; I guess I'm a bad tracker.

"Again, I’m asserting that the warm water ‘anomaly’ which the storm passed over is not unprecedented. "

Really?

#30: I don’t really see this event enhanced through ‘global warming’.

No, you were not.

Please stop denial and lying.

Thanks.

It has been twelve years since a ‘major’ hurricane has struck the US. I guess one may discount more and stronger** storms that AGW was supposed to give us
Did they say more storms? Hmm. And is the NA and twelve years, and landfallingness, a big enough dataset to assess a trend claim about very rare weather events ?
Wasn't the global projection more high end storms relative to total number?
With Harvey, the stationariness is the fascinator, given the physics of enhancement is solid. Harvey just keeps on keeping on within a small training ground, keeping that feed from a deeply warm GoM as it of course must.

On August 30, 2017, Gilbert uttered the following:

"...I’m asserting that the warm water ‘anomaly’ which the storm passed over is not unprecedented."

I'm trying to find some evidence that the current SST anomaly is precedented:
Annual mean SST anomaly certainly appears unprecedented:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Recent weekly anomalies in the Gulf appear to be above the level of last annual global mean anomaly:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/clim/sst.anom.anim.html

So what we have is an unprecedented annual global mean anomaly, with the current local anomaly being above that mean.

I wouldn't necessarily assert the opposite of Gilbert's puzzling assertion, but his assertion certainly appears to have very little basis in reality.
Maybe if I spent more time reading denier-blogs I would be more likely to understand where Gilbert is coming from?

I guess Harvey chilled off the anomaly. That patch of blue near Corpus Cristi is probably due to upwelling from the off-shore wind.

http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif

Second, while rainy tropical cyclones like Harvey aren’t more frequent, the high-level winds that usually push them out to sea or north to Oklahoma have stopped blowing. “We don’t know why they have collapsed," says Emanuel, "and it’s too early to connect it to anthropogenic climate change."...

under current climate models, researchers expect more high-pressure anomalies and a greater chance of collapsed steering winds.

https://www.wired.com/story/what-are-the-odds-of-a-super-storm-like-har…

Here is another one that stalled in 1994:

In Georgia, rainfall from the tropical cyclone peaked at 27.85 in (707 mm) near Americus. Due to a previously stalled cold front, which subsequently caused Alberto to remain stationary,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_Storm_Alberto_%281994%29#Georgia

I guess it's *collapsed steering winds* and *high pressure anomalys all the way down now.

"I pull out of my ass the claim that Harvey chilled off the anomaly."

Fixed that for you, gilly.

Having failed to get any traction with the unsupported ass-pull of "It's not unusual", you're now going for "Well, look, it's winding down!!! That proves AGW is false!" insanity.

Wonder what would pull cold deep water up to the surface.

Maybe a strong updraft above it removing water and causing a little "water hurricane" in the water beneath pulling water in and up in response to the movement of the air above.

But go ahead, do some investigation and see if this anomaly is unusual or not.

"1994..In Georgia"

So during AGW, still.

>Wasn’t the global projection more high end storms relative to total number?

That's what it should have been. However, the statements at the time was that these hurricanes are because of global warming, and we are going to see it happen more often(this includes stronger as Katrina was a strong hurricane). I didn't notice any objections from climate scientists at the time.

">Wasn’t the global projection more high end storms relative to total number?

That’s what it should have been"

Not really, though. There's not been enough events to show any difference either proving or disproving the prediction, and the prediction is based on some assumptions that have large error bars.

All we KNOW is how hurricanes get energy and that the method by which they get this is more plentifully supplied under AGW.

Maybe a strong updraft above it removing water and causing a little “water hurricane” in the water beneath pulling water in and up in response to the movement of the air above.

What? The upwelling is caused by off-shore winds which move the water out, in a lateral fashion, to be replaced with water from below.
==================

Craig Thomas, That graph is hard for me to read. It looks like the year 2000 was warmer than now. Although the 2017 global trend looks on track to beat it in the homestretch.

test

Maybe if I spent more time reading denier-blogs

I went searching and wanted to supply a sample of such a 'denier-blog' but, apparently, links to wattsupwiththat are verboten here.

It was a discussion of warm anomalys in the gulf of mexico back in 2011. From that, It was shown that the peak warm anomaly was 2000-2002 -- It looks like it still holds for this day and time.

Back in the day, I perused the gulf temperature and how it might be affected by the oil spill in 2010. There was much warmth (oil decreases (the otherwise ripply) surface area and evaporation) that ended up spilling into the gulf stream. Of course, for the discussion of tropical systems, it matters little if the storm does not pass over it.

Can you point me toward a monthly, weekly, or daily (most relevant to the development of Harvey) anomaly measurement?

´People don't have time to spill. The Harvey's of the world don't stop. On the contrary, they become more extreme each year. What's next? Guangzhou or Miami? According to the World Bank the extent of the (financial) damage because of a high risk of flooding is the greatest there. Or will it be Europe? Last year France, Germany and Austria have been flooded.´ Source: NRC Handelsblad, Author: Henk Ovink, water representative of the Netherlands, Sherpa of the UN-panel for water and member of the rebuild team after hurricane Sandy. Translation, GB. This quote confirms earlier messages Kees de Haar received during his time as active psychic medium in 1984-2005 in public séances as warnings directed to mankind. It is all part of this era´s climate change and earth change. Read: De apocalyps van de aarde in vijf bedrijven. Expected in October, November 2017. Publisher.

# 59. Read: NRC Handelsblad, Saturday 2 September & Sunday 3 September 2017, page Opinie & Debat O&D7.

"This quote confirms earlier messages Kees de Haar received during his time as active psychic medium "

No, no it doesn't. Stop lowering the quality of comments with foolish references to your favorite scam artist and faker.

We didn’t have satellites to see hurricanes develop miles out to sea days in advance of the event in 1900. www.kalitetv.net

Watch the path of the hurricanes. These month's we have Harvey, now Irma, what is next?

#58. Is this the sort of thing you mean Gilbert?

http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sfc_daily.php?plot=ssa&inv=0&t=cur

That is the same plot I linked to (#52). It was after Harvey and shows the SST ~.5 c and anomalously cool south of Corpus Christi (presumably due to offshore winds causing upwelling).

I didn't see how to view past data there -- data before and during Harvey's growth.

Can't believe some people still don't agree with climate change.

“you can never attribute a given weather event to climate change.”

True, in that the *occurrence* of, say, a hurricane cannot be attributed to climate change. However, the great *severity* of that hurricane CAN be attributed to climate change.

Greg,

One quibble with an otherwise excellent post:

This is wrong. There is no such thing as a storm of any kind that is not a function of the current climatology.

Sorry, but blaming the current climate science for storms is magical thinking straight out of a Simpsons episode. Anyone remember what the pitchfork-wielding mob shouted after North America narrowly escaped destruction by an asteroid?

"Let's burn down the observatory so this can never happen again!"

Anyway, all this rather-troubling discussion of maritime storms that have now been enhanced by a six-inch sub's worth of SLR has gotta make even the most ostrichistic of denialists nostalgic for long-gone hiatus.

*smiles wistfully*

I'm sure we all remember those precious, all-too-brief years when there was no detectable warming, and hence no detectable sea-level rise (because there was no detectable warming, and sea-level rise is caused by warming)?

Daymar College Online,

is this meant to be satire:

Can’t believe some people still don’t agree with climate change.

Because it's not funny.

Climate change kills, dude. Do you agree with the killing of 300,000 innocent people per annum, according to the UN Secretary-General?

Nobody else does. Every decent person opposes man-made global warming. If you're seriously for it (and not just being sarcastic), then I respect my right to disagree, but I won't fight for your right to complain when you find yourself living—with apologies to the original Chinese—in interesting times.

You deserve them.

Nice post

“you can never attribute a given weather event to climate change.” Bollocks ya cant. These are terribly uninformed words.
The temp gradient profile by latitude is mucking about bigtime with the ( North ) polar jet stream, causing great big fuckoff waves of high amplitude that move real slow.

The Mythical Republican Climate Pivot

gregladen — Thu, 24 Aug 2017 15:29:41 +0000

The Mythical Republican Climate Pivot

Every now and then, I hear someone giving the Republican Party credit for finally starting to get on board with 20th (or even 19th) century science, and 21st century eyeballs, to accept the idea of climate change. That is annoying whenever it happens because it simply isn't ever true and never will be.

Media Matters for America has a piece critiquing a recent Politico assertion that the tide is turning. Here is some of what they say, click through to the rest.

...

Politico's story...offers two main examples to support its argument: First, the bipartisan House Climate Solutions Caucus "has more than tripled in size since January" and now includes 26 of the House's 240 Republicans. Second, 46 House Republicans voted in July against lifting a requirement that the Defense Department study climate change's impacts on the military.

But these House members are hardly going out on a limb. The climate caucus does not promote any specific legislation or policies. And military leaders, including Defense Secretary James Mattis, have long been concerned about climate change and have voiced no objections to studying it. Indeed, the Politico article notes, "If the Republican Party is undergoing a shift on climate, it is at its earliest, most incremental stage."

What the article missed was a timely and dramatic counterexample: In California, where a handful of GOP state legislators recently provided the decisive votes in favor of actual climate legislation, they have come under brutal fire from other Republicans.

California Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, signed a bill on July 25 to extend the state's cap-and-trade system until 2030. He had negotiated with a handful of Republican legislators and with business lobbies, among others, to craft a relatively corporate-friendly bill, not as strong as many environmental justice advocates and other progressives wanted. In the end, three Democrats in the Assembly voted against it, so it was passed only because seven of their Republican colleagues voted for it. One Republican in the state Senate also voted in favor of the bill.

The blowback against those Republicans was immediate and intense. GOP leaders throughout California are now pushing for the ouster of Republican Assembly Leader Chad Mayes, who played a key role in negotiating the bill and rounding up other Republican votes for it.

And the blowback has gone national: Powerful D.C.-based anti-tax zealot Grover Norquist declared open season on Mayes and the seven other Republicans who voted “yes,” co-authoring an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times last week that accused Mayes of "treachery" and argued that the California legislature is a "big fat target for taxpayers who wish to go after Republicans behaving badly."
...

If this kind of backlash happens in the Golden State, just imagine what would happen in D.C. if the House Climate Solutions Caucus did anything more than gently gesture at the possibility of climate action. Conservative groups in D.C. aren't even satisfied with an administration that's been aggressively rolling back environmental protections; they are pushing the EPA to debate and undermine basic climate science.

National media should be reporting on the drama unfolding in California when they write about Republicans and climate change. It's been covered by newspapers in the state but missed by virtually all outlets beyond California's borders.

...

Politico is far from alone in pushing the idea that Republicans might be nearing a tipping point on climate change. Reporters and columnists at national outlets keep publishing versions of this seemingly counterintuitive story and glossing over a key truth: The base and the establishment of the Republican Party will enact harsh retribution on elected officials who endorse policies designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Vice published a piece on August 17 titled "The Republicans Trying to Fight Climate Denial in Their Own Party," which focused on the Climate Leadership Council...

Time ran an article in May headlined "Meet the Republicans Taking On Climate Change," which mentioned both the Climate Solutions Caucus and the Climate Leadership Council. The Guardian ran one in April under the headline "The Republicans who care about climate change: 'They are done with the denial.'"...

....

Go all the way back to 2010 for a classic of the genre, a Thomas Friedman opinion column in The New York Times titled "How the G.O.P. Goes Green," which praised Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) for "courageously" trying to craft a bipartisan climate bill. Less than four months later, Graham bailed from the whole enterprise and helped to ensure that no climate legislation would pass during the Obama presidency.

It's nice that a handful of congressional Republicans are taking baby steps toward acknowledging that climate change is a big problem that demands big solutions. But their moves are far from courageous, and the media adulation they get is all out of proportion to their clout. Norquist is more influential on this issue than all of the climate-concerned congressional Republicans combined, a fact most journalists are not acknowledging, and Norquist reiterated his die-hard opposition to a carbon tax just last week.

Many of the articles about Republicans turning over a new leaf on climate cite Bob Inglis or the group he runs, RepublicEN, which promotes conservative climate solutions. Inglis was a U.S. representative from South Carolina until he got primaried out in 2010, in part because he called for a carbon tax. Norquist's organization, Americans for Tax Reform, gave a boost to Inglis' primary challenger. In the years since, Inglis has been working doggedly to get other Republicans to take climate change seriously, but if they followed his advice at this point, they'd likely get booted out in a primary too.

Just like there's no Donald Trump pivot, there's no Republican climate pivot. We'll know we're seeing real change when more than a handful of GOP lawmakers take a risky vote for actual policy to reduce carbon emissions. Until then, journalists should avoid writing trend stories about this nonexistent trend.

gregladen Thu, 08/24/2017 - 11:29

Tags

Climate Change

Global Warming

global warming

Republican Climate Change

Spike in Greenhouse Gasses

gregladen — Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:51:57 +0000

Spike in Greenhouse Gasses

Greenhouse gases go up and down in three ways.

First, there is the annual up and down cycle that happens because there is more land in the Northern Hemisphere. I won't explain that to you now because I know you can figure out why that happens.

Second, there is natural variation up and down aside from that annual cycle that has to do with things like volcanoes and such. This includes the rate of forest fires, which increase greenhouse gases by turning some of the Carbon trapped in plant tissue into gas form as CO2. (That was a hint for the answer to the first reason!)

Third, humans.

There was a big spike in CO2 concentration this year, and it was caused by El Nino increasing forest fire output, which in turn, freed up some of that CO2. Also, regional drought in some places simply slowed down plant growth, leaving some Carbon stranded in the atmosphere.

So was that natural? Not at all. ENSO cycles, that cause El Nino and La Nina constitute and oscillation in rainfall patterns, and part of that results in extra forest fires or other effects as mentioned. But these effects are caused directly by weather disruption. Human caused global warming was already doing that. The severe El Nino of 2014-2016 was more severe (and probably longer) than any, or almost any, ever observed, precisely because it was a big dermatological monster sitting on top of a big hill made by anthropogenic global warming.

But there is also another,subtler but very important lesson in this event. At any given time we could have what would normally be a "natural" shift to bad conditions. But under global warming, such a shift can be transformed from a disaster to a much bigger disaster. In this way, think of climate change as the steepening of the drop off alongside the road from a 2 foot ditch to a 10 foot embankment. When we drive off the road due to natural forces (some ice, for example) without global warming,we get bounced around a bit. With global warming we get to rely on our airbags to save us, but the airbag deployment will probably break both our arms and mess up our face.

Anyway, the confirmation of the role of El Nino comes from new research discussed here.

gregladen Wed, 08/16/2017 - 07:51

Tags

Ha ha ha!

ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/preliminary/
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/data/trace_gases/co2/in-situ/surface/

I asked for the 2017 preliminary digital CO2 data for BRW, MLO, SMO and SPO just yesterday (actually three days ago).

Thank you Kirk at NOAA.

There is a more conventional explanation for CO2 variations, which is a function of temperature (among the other factors mentioned above).

Could enough forest fires cause a "Fire Winter" like a mild Nuclear Winter/

"There is a more conventional explanation for CO2 variations,"

Which is that oxydiation of hydrocarbons produce water, CO2 and energy I am sorry that you have to look for esoteric and poorly understood features to keep your insanity alive, Francis. Maybe one day you'll get better.

Thomas, no. The nuclear winter is from stratospheric dust which doesn't rain out in a couple of days. Fires don't cause that much lift.

AGW denialists would be funny if they weren't trying to kill people. Every unusually hot year, every new record, is blamed on El Nino, and while they are El Nino years, they conveniently ignore the fact that, over the past few decades, any major El Nino event is generally hotter than the one before.

Wow,

There is a well known ~2nd order effect of temperature on atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The ocean CO2 sink in the overall carbon cycle get's slightly smaller during El Nino and slightly larger during La Nina.

This is best seen in the 1st derivative of the CO2 time series. I'm using the weekly (and monthly) time series from MLO. Of course, the 1st derivative loses the primary 1st order anthro contribution to atmospheric CO2.

I am in no way questioning the overall net anthro contribution to atmospheric CO2. The article GL points to, and the MLO chart that GL shows, points out some subtleties of the atmospheric CO2 time series.

One subtlety is the uptake of CO2 by the ocean sink as the oceans warm (or cool) (e. g. the ENSO).

So, atmospheric CO2 increases are 100% anthro. How it traverses the end points of the observational time series is of some interest, as GL points out in the linked article and the included MLO CO2 graph (for the most recent El Nino).

That is all.

Where did wow get the meta-myth that :

"The nuclear winter is from stratospheric dust which doesn’t rain out in a couple of days. Fires don’t cause that much lift." ?

#4 Exactly

Where did teapot get the meth myth that it was a metamyth?

"There is a well known ~2nd order effect of temperature on atmospheric CO2 concentrations."

There is a well known first order effect of burning that it produces CO2. And it was known in the early days of chemistry.

Meanwhile CO2's degassing was not known about until much later.

Sorry, Frankie, the asinine claim is still assinine.

Wow,

"And it was known in the early days of chemistry."

Would that be in the Stone Age, Iron Age or the Bronze Age?

Alchemy fool.

"Would that be in the Stone Age"

I would suggest you ask a schoolchild about what chemistry is. Clearly when you were fed that line you prattled out in your first post, this was just a script you were reading from.

Wow,

"Clearly when you were fed that line you prattled out in your first post, this was just a script you were reading from."

Are you an atmospheric CO2 rate of change denier? :(

Are you clinically in a vegetative state? There is clearly no discernable brain activity going on there.

You deny combustion. Confuse chemistry with Alchemy, and have zero reading comprehension.

Wow,

How many harmonics of the weekly MLO CO2 time series does NOAA take out to derive their "increase since 1800" time series?

ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_weekly_mlo.txt

The correct answer is four (including the annual harmonic). :(

Wow,

Are you seriously math impaired? :(

You traffic in informal logical fallacies, the current one being a straw man. :(

"How many harmonics of the weekly MLO"

Meaningless. Combustion of hydrocarbons produce CO2. Ask the internet how much fossil fuel we burn in a year. If you don't trust the leftist internet, ask the fossil fuel corporations.

Are you on meth?

"including the annual harmonic"

Mathturbation.

You're blind to reality because of all the mathturnation you've been fed by people who attended school and have found in you a gullible idiot to hide behind.

Meaningless? Then I would very kindly suggest that you notify NOAA as to their "meaningless" column of data. Mkay? :(

Note to self: Combustion of carbon into CO2 is a given along with anthro carbon emissions. Dealing with meth (er math) impaired internet trolls, not so much. :(

Wow,

Are you seriously math impaired?

He thinks that if you plot the natural log of CO2 forcing against CO2 ppmv, the result is a linear 1:1 relationship. So, yes.

"You’re blind to reality because of all the mathturnation you’ve been fed by people who attended school and have found in you a gullible idiot to hide behind."

Still trafficking in the straw man informal logical fallacy, I see. :(

Wow

FFS go back and read what FES actually wrote at #1 and #5. He is correct and you have not understood what he wrote and are now doing your standard rabid idiot attack thing.

Your target acquisition software is buggy.

@ FES

Sorry, to be clear, my #20 referred to a 'conversation' with Wow on an earlier thread.

You will get no sense out of the man. Be warned.

Hello BBD,

"He thinks that if you plot the natural log of CO2 forcing against CO2 ppmv, the result is a linear 1:1 relationship. So, yes."

I'm not sure if that one deserves a /sarc tag.

As in he could be me.

"FFS go back and read what FES actually wrote at #1 and #5."

I did. It was content free and even letter lite, being mostly initials and an ftp graph.

"He is correct "

Where? He's not correct in denying combustion of CO2 was known about long before outgassing from oceans. Nor about the combustion happens.

Thanks BBD. :)

"You will get no sense out of the man"

Don'tlsten to the hysterical woman. they've been eternally butthurt over her nuke fluffing being destroyed. Just like with the fake "I'm not an *atheist*, I'm an agnostic, I don't believe there's a god, and that's the only sane option!". She gets self gratification by pretending to be a moderate accepting "both sides" therefore *better than either*. And therefore Mackay's nuke fluff and renewable attack piece really frotted her trotters. It used rhetoric to make "both sides" wrong and therefore all true followers (tm) of Mackay the best of everyone.

"I see"

Still on meths, I see.

"Meaningless? Then I would very kindly suggest that you notify NOAA "

No need. They don't deny chemistry and combustion. You do.

"Note to self: Combustion of carbon into CO2 is a given along with anthro carbon emissions."

Then why did you not say so in your first post? Why wait until now to recant your idiocy?

"Dealing with meth (er math) impaired internet trolls,"

Then stop taking meth and stop the impairment getting worse.

"if you plot the natural log of CO2 forcing against CO2 ppmv, the result is a linear 1:1 relationship."

Have you even looked at how to calculate the CO2 forcing from QM first priniciples? I did not but worked in the next nissan hut from someone who did and looked over some of the coding of the maths as a double check (along with another coworker independently: we scientists take rigour quite seriously, especially when programming and knowing we are not computer graduates).

You are just a tired old moron digging for something that you believe merely on the basis of you believe is other than reality says.

Wow,

"Where? He’s not correct in denying combustion of CO2 was known about long before outgassing from oceans. Nor about the combustion happens."

You DO understand informal logical fallacies?

If not, as would appear to be the present case, then look into "straw man fallacy" as you are putting your own words into my mouth.

You have now made several incorrect statements and have assigned them to me. :( :( :(

"You DO understand informal logical fallacies?"

Yes.

You DO realise that blank assertions like that lies, right? That by asking that question you are asserting by insinuation that I do not and that therefore I am wrong without having in any way whatsoever to provide any argument, evidence or proof of the assertion, leaving it entirely up to me to do all the work, and that this offloading is why the gish gallop and the associated fallacy is used?

"then look into “straw man fallacy”"

Since the only one was the one you made in #12, why should I be the one to look into it? I already know what it is. You are the incompetent moron who cannot comprehend what one is. Or playing the incompetent moron. Neither works out well for you.

"You have now made several incorrect statements"

Ah, projection too.

Hey BBD, is Wow aka Blogger profile from RR infamy?

Just, you know, sayin'

"Just, you know, sayin’"

Here's the problem. "just sayin'" what? No, actual information is not conducive and besides as long as you keep it to insinuation, to find out you're wrong means everyone else has to do more work, and you don't nee anyone to find out you're right because you know you are even if you aren't.

As long as you keep it vague, nothing can be done without punishing those who dare not accept your sayin's.

Which is what deceptive morons and charlatans do. Takes less effort that way and anyway information makes your brain hurt.

Wow,

Moving on to ad hominems, I see.

Six posts in a row, wow!

Time to steal me some quotes from the internets ...

There are no more barriers to cross. All I have in common with the uncontrollable and the insane, the vicious and the evil, all the mayhem I have caused and my utter indifference toward it I have now surpassed. My pain is constant and sharp, and I do not hope for a better world for anyone. In fact, I want my pain to be inflicted on others. I want no one to escape. But even after admitting this, there is no catharsis; my punishment continues to elude me, and I gain no deeper knowledge of myself. No new knowledge can be extracted from my telling. This confession has meant nothing.

"Moving on to ad hominems,"

Still hallucinating.

"Six posts in a row, wow!"

So you watched and learned from Sesame Street! AMAZING!

Oh, and a argument by irrelevant comparison "You're posting therefore your argument is wrong".

Sad.

And still more continuing with the unformed accusation so it cannot be verified or rejected. How is that working out for you, cupcake?

"This confession has meant nothing."

So now you recant on the "It's NOT meaningless! Go tell NOAA!!!!".

Sick.

And then you delve into insanity.

Bigly.

Hey BBD, is Wow aka Blogger profile from RR infamy?

Yup.

we scientists take rigour quite seriously,

You are, at best, a PC tech, Wow. You are not, and have never been, a scientist.

Stop lying. It's not even funny.

"Yup."

Meaningless yupping.

"You are, at best, a PC tech,"

Lie.

" You are not, and have never been, a scientist"

bullshit claim made because you are clueless but have great opinions. There's an orangutan in a big house just like you, dumdum.

"Stop lying."

Stop making shit up, retard.

"It’s not even funny."

Yet more meaningless babble from dumdum.

"Yet more meaningless babble from dumdum."

dumdum?

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2015/11/nuff-said.html

Thought so.

"dumdum?"

Yeah, he's a dumdum.

"Thought so."

No thinking apparent.

we scientists take rigour quite seriously,

Once again, for the record, this is Wow lying about being a scientist.

Abusive, delusional and downright dishonest.

For the record.

Once again, you're wrong, dumdum.

When it comes to your ped peeves, you're as ignorant yet strongly opinionated as dick.

You.
Are.
Wrong.

"Abusive, delusional and downright dishonest. "

Says someone who KNOWS they have no evidence for their claim and insists that I can't be a scientist, because, well, she wants to denigrate me for not accepting their batshittery merely because they accept that AGW is real, and thinks that this will work. Which is abusive, delusional and downright dishonest.

Making the claim there ironic.

There's only one thing to say about this thread ... wow.

Every time I see or have to read a Wow post I go ...

OMFG! Humanity is s-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o DOOMED!

FES

Just realised what I wrote at #20. Which was not what I *thought* I wrote. Because if I had written that a plot of CO2 forcing (W/m^2) against CO2 conc (ppm) does not yield a linear 1:1 relationship, then I would have said what I meant.

Sorry :-)

BBD #52:

Don't be so hard on yourself. You said "natural log of CO2 . . ." in #20. I thought that using the logarithm of one or more variables instead of the un-logged form makes the effective
relationship non-linear, while still preserving the linear model. So I didn't think your #20 was wrong in the first place.

>looked over some of the coding of the maths as a double check (along with another coworker independently: we scientists take rigour quite seriously, especially when programming and knowing we are not computer graduates).

Now that's funny. You couldn't even recognize the code you posted didn't match your files, after having it pointed out to you.

"OMFG! Humanity is s-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o DOOMED!"

Ah, yes, lacking any argument, you talk bollocks. Well done, moron. I'm sure you're a legend in your own mind.

"You couldn’t even recognize the code you posted didn’t match your files"

Ah, the alternative reality. You mean when you posted a link and claimed it had some lines in it you quoted, the lines did not appear. And somehow that is my fault...?

"plot of CO2 forcing (W/m^2) against CO2 conc (ppm) does not yield a linear 1:1 relationship"

Yeah, other way round.

Log co2 vs temp. Linear coefficient. Dumdum thinks not. Neither does dick.

Exxon lied.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2…

Climate Change in the 'Hood

milhayser — Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:37:38 +0000

Climate Change in the 'Hood

On Class M, James Hrynyshyn shows us how climate change will benefit the economies of some U.S. counties while damaging many others. This mostly has to do with location; coastal areas and southern latitudes are more threatened, with Florida poised to suffer worst of all. James writes, "we're not just talking about polar bears anymore. It's now about jobs, wages, infrastructure, crime." Meanwhile, William M. Connolley reports Antarctica's Larsen C ice shelf is 12% smaller due to a giant iceberg splitting off and heading (presumably) toward Miami. Greg Laden says denial of global warming has shaped political discourse for decades, thanks to "deep pocketed one percenters and corporations harboring the unfortunate delusion that if we pretend climate change is not caused by the burning of fossil fuels, everything will be fine and they'll keep getting rich." But public awareness of the problem, like sea level, continues to rise.

milhayser Thu, 07/27/2017 - 08:37

Tags

These heat waves are global warming connected

gregladen — Wed, 05 Jul 2017 09:08:43 +0000

These heat waves are global warming connected

It really is true that global warming has made heat waves more common and more severe. The heat wave last month that affected the American southwest was one of these. Yet, of the 433 local broadcast events in local TV affiliates in Phoenix and Las Vegas to mention the heatwave (which was current news at the time) only one event mentioned a climate change connection, and that was to downplay it.

Similarly, governments are ignoring the connection.

This is the people who are supposed to help or at least disseminate correct information, letting everyone down for, I assume, political reasons. Shame on them.

Media Matters has a more detailed analysis here.

gregladen Wed, 07/05/2017 - 05:08

Tags

These are the people that will cause the biosphere to become inhospitable to most life..

These heat waves are part of global warming, climate change and earth change. Poles and glaciers are melting with increasing speed, leading to an accelerating downfall of huge masses of land ice of the Antarctic. This is the fuse which leads to a change of earth crust and the forming new poles. this has been thoroughly described by professor Charles Hapgood in 'the path of the poles', first print 1958, with a foreword of Albert Einstein. In 1984 - 2005 a Dutch medium, Kees de Haar, received detailed predictions form above, which add to Hapgoods analysis and planet forecast. It is a natural phenomenon, which has happened countless times, with one difference, that in this antropoceen era mankind has speeded up this process by heating earth, oceans and atmosphere. I wrote about it on this blog several times. The study I wrote about these predictions, including a hypothesis how the rather sudden change of interglacial to glacial I described in Book I, the main work. Book II contains the sources and a commentary. Book III is about evidence and rebuttal. It is mainly in Dutch and partly English. It is not only about climate change is earth change, but also about four other stages of the apocalypse of earth. Financial-economic, war and terrorism, migration, the disrespect for God, Christ, nature, people, life and planet. I expect the books to be printed soon. We are in the first part of this apocalypse. Donald Trump and other world leaders play with fire by promoting heat producing industry, nuclear power and radioactive bombs. It will only lead to disasters for uncountable people. People like Trump can troll and curse what they want, but it will not change earth's course a bit. Laren NH, Wednesday 5th. July 2017, 22.19 PM DT.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DD-1CZ3WAAEzkMC.jpg pretty much sums it up

"This is the fuse which leads to a change of earth crust and the forming new poles."

Bullshit from a woo peddler who wanted fame and your fortune.

"this has been thoroughly described by professor Charles Hapgood in ‘the path of the poles’, first print 1958, "

Nope, it hasn't. That is a load of crap. Just look at the rapturists who similarly claim that these events are foretold by their holy book. It's as legitimate as this one. IOW a load of shite.

"In 1984 – 2005 a Dutch medium, Kees de Haar, received detailed predictions form above"

Nope,this dude pulled it out of his arse.

"It is a natural phenomenon, which has happened countless times"

Bullshit,

"Book III is about evidence and rebuttal"

Nope, all three books are bollocks.

" of the apocalypse of earth. Financial-economic, war and terrorism, migration, the disrespect for God, Christ"

Bullshit. Terrorism micration and war have been about for, oooh, 4000 years or more. And both god and christ are fictions. Myths.

Of course, those peddling woo for their profit and ego will have no recourse but to bluster and bull their way past any actual proof of their claims or the error of those who aren't buying.

After all, if you don't control the information, how can you peddle a pig in a poke?

Oh?

Doug Adler. You gave me a cartoon that sums it all up. Thanks! Laren NH, Wednesday 5th. July 2017, 22.51 PM DT.

Aye?

In the 50s to 60s continental drift was not accepted (although plate tectonics had been. Continental drift was not accepted until the 70s. That lack of information is how the crank Hapgood conned Einstein into writing a forward to his treatise of crackpottery.

This failed historian came up with his asinine idea when he was asked about an imaginary continent (name forgotten) and he dreamed this crap pile up to cobble together an explanation. He claimed to discover this after examining numerous maps in the Library of Congress. Amazingly, of all the ones he claims he referenced, only one, the Piri Reis map, exists. Apparently the rest existed only in his little scam.

How stupid is his idea: he claimed one of the maps (one of those that doesn’t exist) showed a 15 degree change in the earth’s axis of rotation in roughly 10000 BCE. He neglected to point out that had this really happened (and it didn’t) every animal wandering around would have been tossed through the air over 1000 mph — and would have come to no good end. Tall natural features would have been destroyed.

This crap was used for the idea of the movie 2012 too — and as awful as that movie was, it wasn’t meant to be taken seriously. Only an idiot takes Hapgood seriously. What kind of idiot? The kind that would write stuff like this:

In 1984 – 2005 a Dutch medium, Kees de Haar, received detailed predictions form above, which add to Hapgoods analysis and planet forecast. It is a natural phenomenon, which has happened countless times, with one difference, that in this antropoceen era mankind has speeded up this process by heating earth, oceans and atmosphere.

Crackpot theory by a failed historian added to pure bullshit pushed by a medium (a.k.a. scam artist) = stuff as far from science as it is possible to get. Purely stuff for the uneducated.

The book "The path of the poles" was written in 1970. Einstein was dead 1955. Kinda hard to write a forward for a book when you're 15 years dead.

"when he was asked about an imaginary continent (name forgotten)"

Mu.

My mistake -- the work of crackpottery that featured Einstein's forward was The Earth's Shifting Crust. It's rather sad to hear that he was duped into giving this stuff the slight slap of support he did, and that it has been expanded to indicate a mark of validity for Hapgood's charade.

No, that was the name that great boogers used. Here he is again:

described by professor Charles Hapgood in ‘the path of the poles’, first print 1958, with a foreword of Albert Einstein.

The Path of the Poles was written in 1970. Hell, Al was dead three years before the printing great boogers claimed it was written in.

I looked it up, and apparently he wrote three books. But the one great boogers claimed was 1970, not 1958, and Einstein died 1955.

And I don't know that the forward would necessarily be an imprimatur of accuracy by Einstein. He could just have said it was an interesting idea from an outside with some unusual ideas in it.

If, that is, he wrote one for any book on some polar catastrophe fantasy.

Remember, Cark Sagan could be quotemined to support Velikovsky when in actual fact all Carl Sagan said was that the arguments against him were frequently not scientific, just polemic in nature.

Someone wasted time and internet to put the stuff online. Here it is, with forward from Einstein.

https://archive.org/stream/eathsshiftingcru033562mbp

Well on a quick read it looks just like he was given a draft (remember he died before it got printed) and its outside his expertise so he might just have read it and accepted it.

Not quite as bad as Newton looking for the Philosopher's stone.

But yeah, summed up it says "I've been given this book idea and it looks like it's got some great ideas and puts a lot of evidence for his claims". If it had been about theoretical physics, it might mean something. If it had been before he'd died and could read the final print, it might have found a retraction. Or might not.

As someone living in Australia knowing that heatwaves are actually the most lethal of all extreme weather events who already dreads the heatwaves of summer, this is predictable but grim news indeed.

@14 Wow :

Remember, Cark Sagan could be quotemined to support Velikovsky when in actual fact all Carl Sagan said was that the arguments against him were frequently not scientific, just polemic in nature.

As you may or may not already know, Carl Sagan actually strongly debunked Velikovsky in considerable detail and a dedicated chapter (7) in his Brocas Brain (1974 /1979) book.

***

"To the best of my knowledge, in (Velikovsky's book -ed)Worlds in Collision, there is not a single correct prediction made with sufficient precision for it to be more than a vague , lucky guess - and there are, as I have tried to point out, a host of demonstrably false claims."
- Carl Sagan, page156, Brocas Brain , Coronet books, first published 1974, this edition, 1979.

@11. Wow :

“when he was asked about an imaginary continent (name forgotten)”

Mu.

Yes - and also Lemuria or, at least according to the classic old Mysterious Cities of Gold cartoon, Hiva.

In Einstein's defense, there's a crucial "if" in the first paragraph of his introduction, and a serious doubt expressed in the fourth.

14
in actual fact all Carl Sagan said was that the arguments against him were frequently not scientific, just polemic in nature.

As one of Carl's favorite punch lines was Thou shalt not covet thine own hypothesis, It's too bad that the same can be said of his responses to those not infrequent occasions when he responded to scientific criticism with stonewalling , selective citation , and legal threats .

Ah, right. All those examples you have given are solid proof.

The only legal one I remember is the Apple who changed their startup sound to "Sosume" in retaliation.

Not that it matters much, because the entire point of the scientific method is the acknowledged fact everyone is liable to the failure. Which is why argument from authority is not a proof,merely an induction, and the fallacy only where the authority is false.

Going back to the original thread topic for a moment......The media is ignoring the link between climate change and heat waves. And that seems perfectly natural when you think about how much income the media gets from car ads fort those fossil fuel guzzlers that some of us think contribute to heat waves. Or when you consider that a heat wave in and of itself is a comfortable news story for a local news outlet to cover, but that a complicated, glacially slow, civilization changing train wreck that involves science and math is just not something they have a clue how to play. Consider too that it is just not in the interest of Putin the fossil fuel exporter, or his subordinate, Our Dear Leader, that famous heavyweight wrestler, Little Hand the Gubmint Wrecker, to advance efforts to fight climate change.

You can go back to your side track now.

#21,22 had me scrolling up to see your discussion about Apple having codename Sagan, getting sued, and then switched to BHA for butthead astronomer.

Trump, Perry, Energy, Climate, #Sad

gregladen — Thu, 29 Jun 2017 06:32:15 +0000

Trump, Perry, Energy, Climate, #Sad

Two items I know you'll want to check out.

The ‘intellectual’ debate Rick Perry says he wants is already over

Last week, Energy Secretary Rick Perry told CNBC he considers his skepticism towards climate data to be a sign of a “wise, intellectually engaged person.” Yesterday, at a press briefing at the White House – it’s apparently supposed to be “Energy Week” – Perry used similar phrasing, calling for “an intellectual conversation” on global warming.

Four myths journalists should watch out for during Trump’s “Energy Week”

The White House has declared this to be "Energy Week" and is pushing a theme of "energy dominance," with a particular emphasis on exports of natural gas. Three of President Trump's cabinet members are out in force this week trying to spread misleading or false messages about energy and exports through the media.

"An energy-dominant America will export to markets around the world, increasing our global leadership and influence," Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt wrote in a joint op-ed published Monday in The Washington Times.

Watch out for these myths:

Myth #1: Natural gas exports are good for ordinary Americans and the overall U.S. economy

Myth #2: Natural gas exports are good for the climate

Myth #3: Natural gas exports have been blocked until now

Myth #4: The U.S. can achieve "energy dominance"

The item at MMFA has the details.

gregladen Thu, 06/29/2017 - 02:32

Tags

energy

Green Energy

President Donald Trump

climate change

global warming

Perry

All exports are good for America. If we have a surplus in a good (like natural gas), and we can sell it abroad - that is good.

Why wouldn't natural gas exports be good for climate change? If the natural gas is used to replace coal, that is better for climate change.

We still live in a world were just a few percent of power is produced from renewables - so natural gas has lower CO2 emissions than coal or oil.

The first two "myths" don't seem like myths to me.

After nearly sixty years of natural gas exploitation in the province of Groningen and a worldwide sale of Dutch gas, complete areas are getting uninhabitable, because of earthquakes ruining houses, farms, churches, monuments and soil. What are the effects of the overexploitation of non renewable energy for the economy, the land, richness and well being of citizens? The USA can open its gas tap fully and unconditionally, but what happens than?

Climate Change and Earth Change are two sides of the same medal. People help raise the temperature of oceans, land and atmosphere and in doing so people bring earth to the melting point of poles and glaciers. In doing so people accelerate the process by which the crust of the earth will change positions, by collapsing poles as fuses. The president of the USA and the GOP are (blindly) applying for a historic role as fuse igniters. Not a thing to be proud of. They are literally playing with matches. Time for change. Laren NH, Thursday 29 June 2017, 23.38 PM DT.

"In doing so people accelerate the process by which the crust of the earth will change positions, by collapsing poles as fuses."

Asinine baseless claim of a moron without a clue.

"Why wouldn’t natural gas exports be good for climate change? "

So you have some sort of magical carbon free hydrocarbon gas?

Or are you an idiot?

The latter, isn't it.

@ Wow: "Asinine baseless claim of a moron without a clue"

Comment by a non-anonymous to troll Wow:

an excellent choice of words of Wow’s own input.

Laren NH, June 30th. 2017, 6:47 AM DT.

No, it was a comment by me, great boogers.

Go learn about reality. Any piece of it would be an improvement. Because all you have at the moment is complete shite.

#1 By christ you export alot of shit movies and telly shows.
Give it a rest will yas.
Your Hummers and Ftrucks are an abomination too.
That said, thanks for MASH and Sienfeld and Rear window, which is one of my favorite flicks. Raymond Burr was outstanding.
Cant think of one decent yank motorcar or lorry.

RickA

All exports are good for America. If we have a surplus in a good (like natural gas), and we can sell it abroad – that is good.

Why wouldn’t natural gas exports be good for climate change? If the natural gas is used to replace coal, that is better for climate change.

Both incorrect claims are addressed in the link in the OP.

Perhaps read?

BBD, RickA invests in fossil fuels. This is why he ignores fact and favours the GoP mythology on the goodness of coal, oil, and gas.

A suicidal economy based on conspicuous consumption makes us little more advanced than megaloceros giganteus, and promises us the same fate.