Slashdot Mirror

At the moment there is no evidence that the number of hurricanes in the North Atlantic Ocean increases. Apart from the influence of previously mentioned factors [specific to hurricane Harvey] the absence of good observations from the past plays a role. Nowadays more hurricanes are registered than previously. In the past no satellites existed that registered everything but we relied on information from ships that happened to sail in the vicinity. Climate models predict a decrease of the number of hurricanes because due the climate change the atmosphere becomes more stable. The number of heavy hurricanes increases however because of the increased availability of energy in a warmer climate. We'll therefore see a shift to more heavy hurricanes.

How stupid is it that we have regulations based on data that's isn't made available for independent verification?

Almost all of it is in fact available, so this is just more GOP BS.

A small part of it is under copyright protection or other NDA -- and that's dumb, and the cure is copyright reform that frees all publicly funded research, and a research funding process that doesn't rely on making researchers cover costs by selling their data. Copyright corrupts science. But Congress isn't doing that, and we can't make other countries do it.

As the University of East Anglias CRU explains,

Since the early 1980s, some NMSs, other organizations and individual scientists have given or sold us (see Hulme, 1994, for a summary of European data collection efforts) additional data for inclusion in the gridded datasets, often on the understanding that the data are only used for academic purposes with the full permission of the NMSs, organizations and scientists and the original station data are not passed onto third parties. Below we list the agreements that we still hold....Some date back at least 20 years. Additional agreements are unwritten and relate to partnerships we've made with scientists around the world and visitors to the CRU over this period. In some of the examples given, it can be clearly seen that our requests for data from NMSs have always stated that we would not make the data available to third parties....The inability of some agencies to release climate data held is not uncommon in climate science. The Dutch Met Service (KNMI) run the European Climate Assessment and Dataset (ECA&D, http://eca.knmi.nl/) project. They are able to use much data in their numerous analyses, but they cannot make all the original daily station temperature and precipitation series available because of restrictions imposed by some of the data providers...The problem is a generic issue and arises from the need of many NMSs to be or aim to be cost neutral (i.e. sell the data to recoup the costs of making observations and preparing the data).

We receive numerous requests for these station data...These data are not ours to provide without the full permission of the relevant NMSs, organizations and scientists.

And some of the data has been lost to bit rot, like a lot of computer data from decades ago. No surprise.

But the idea that there's some dark secret that a cabal of climate scientists are hiding is the usual denialist gibberish.

From Location of induced earthquakes in the Netherlands gas fields

The catalogue of earthquakes induced by gas production in the north of the Netherlands contains 688 events to date (Feb 2011).

Whereas the surface of most of the Netherlands is flat, the subsurface is highly complex. Near the gas fields the stratification is distorted severely mainly due to salt tectonics (Figure 2). The reservoirs are cut into compartments by vertical faults systems. The earthquakes are associated with differential compaction due to gas extraction and reactivation of the existing faults.

Please note the "reactivation of existing faults" due to "gas extraction". There is no doubt who is responsible for earthquakes in the Netherlands: it is us. No idea how this relates to the American situation, just debunking your "plate tectonics is the root cause of all earthquakes".

no, if the error is 90% then the signal/noise ratio is just crappier so it just takes a larger number of samples before you can draw useful conclusions.
(same AC as PP but calmed down in the meantime).
PS I do respect the fact that you think for yourself figuring things out.
The KNMI has been doing temperature timeseries for 150 years, and even though this is "local warming" not global warming, the graph here looks slightly hockey-sticky to me. And it looks like an error rate approximating 90%, as well :-)

Can someone please explain why everyone and their dog are all so fixated with carbon dioxide when methane is an order of magnitude worse as a greenhouse gas?

While each molecule of methane causes much more warming than CO2, there has been much, much more CO2 released during the industrial revolution, so the warming component of CO2 gas is still larger (60% according to here, which is also a source for the other Methane facts I say here) than the component from CH4. Also, the increase in methane levels mainly comes from the increased scale of our agriculture as our population grows, and most of that comes from our cattle farming. Large developing countries like India and China have already begun industrializing in a way which rapidly raises their CO2 levels on par with the West, however they are showing little indication of adopting the Western diet anywhere near the level that would cause their CH4 production to match that of the US, so it looks like in the near future the CO2 production will outpace methane production by an even greater extent.

Additionally, methane is a useful fuel source, that means that there is an economic incentive to capture it, so that is the sort of thing the private market will take care of by itself as the techniques arise to do so, and this has already begun to happen. New landfills have systems to capture the produced methane, and there are even people experimenting with ways to capture cow farts. There is no money in sequestering carbon in a free economy, and as long as the global and societal costs of burning carbon are not transferred to the market as a financial cost then those methods of energy production will remain cheaper than cleaner methods for the foreseeable future, meaning that that is where our political (to apply those costs) and technological (to lower the costs of the alternatives) efforts need to go.

Lastly and most importantly Methane only persists in the atmosphere for around a dozen years, while CO2 remains for centuries. That means that we canafford to hold off on addressing methane while we work on CO2, since all of the CO2 we produce will stay in the atmosphere basically indefinitely, unless we recapture it at enormous expense, we need to get a grip on it as soon as possible. Once CO2 has started down the road towards sustainability we can address Methane (if it still needs to be addressed), then watch the environment scrub that out naturally within a generation.

HERE IS YOUR FUCKING RAW DATA (because you are unvilling to search it for yourself -- and call yourself a skeptic...):

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2 [noaa.gov]
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/ [noaa.gov]
http://dss.ucar.edu/datasets/ds570.0/ [ucar.edu]
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER [antarctica.ac.uk]
http://eca.knmi.nl/ [eca.knmi.nl]
http://www.zamg.ac.at/histalp/content/view/35/1 [zamg.ac.at]
http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/atdd [nasa.gov]
http://mirador.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/mirador/presentNavigation.pl?tree=project&project=SORCE [nasa.gov]
http://amsu.cira.colostate.edu/ [colostate.edu]
http://www.pol.ac.uk/ntslf/data.html [pol.ac.uk]
http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/dataexp.html [unizh.ch]
http://www.marine.csiro.au/~ttchen/argo/gmap.htm [csiro.au]
http://icoads.noaa.gov/ [noaa.gov]

YOU IDIOT!
Here you are, PLENTY of RAW datasets:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/
http://dss.ucar.edu/datasets/ds570.0/
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER
http://eca.knmi.nl/
http://www.zamg.ac.at/histalp/content/view/35/1
http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/atdd
http://mirador.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/mirador/presentNavigation.pl?tree=project&project=SORCE
http://amsu.cira.colostate.edu/
http://www.pol.ac.uk/ntslf/data.html
http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/dataexp.html
http://www.marine.csiro.au/~ttchen/argo/gmap.htm
http://icoads.noaa.gov/

Let me repeat:
YOU IDIOT

• GHCN v.2 (Global Historical Climate Network: weather station records from around the world, temperature and precipitation)
• USHCN US. Historical Climate Network (v.1 and v.2)
• Antarctic weather stations
• European weather stations (ECA)
• Satellite feeds (AMSU, SORCE (Solar irradiance), NASA A-train)
• Tide Gauges (Proudman Oceanographic Lab)
• World Glacier Monitoring Service
• Argo float data
• International Comprehensive Ocean/Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS) (Oceanic in situ observations)
• AERONET Aerosol information

You can follow the original link to realclimate.org to find many other links to data sources. I have posted the data sources above only because many critics of AGW won't even bother with realclimate.org as they are thought to be part of the conspiracy. The data exists and is public as is the source code.

Here: http://www.knmi.nl/klimatologie/normalen1971-2000/wind_jaargemiddelde.html is a climate windmap. As you can see the average windspeed in zeeland is supposedly at least 5.
The actual Location of the test was here:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Buys+Ballotstraat+8-A,+4507+DA+Schoondijke,+Netherlands&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=32.114675,56.601563&ie=UTF8&ll=51.455718,3.55957&spn=0.788966,1.768799&z=9&iwloc=A
And from the windmap this is supposedly between 6 and 6.5 m/s....
So perhaps all estimates of windpower are too optimistic?????

I don't know where you live, but that's not true overhere, we hard a reasonably cold winter, and a very hot spring and summer. (average temperature of 23 instead of 17 degrees and 15 instead of 12)
http://www.knmi.nl/klimatologie/maand_en_seizoenso verzichten/index.html#jaar
rainfall has been 15 instead of 70 mm, so I don't know where you got that from either.

Only after the first of august have temperatures gotten more in the usual range again.

How does a satelite see atoms? Could you give a cite?

Some satellite-based ozone monitoring instruments:

TOMS (Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer) - NASA

ILAS, ILAS-II (Improved Limb Atmospheric Spectrometer) - NASDA Japan

MLS (Microwave Limb Sounder) - NASA

TOVS (TIROS Operational Vertical Sounder) - NOAA

SBUV, SBUV2 (Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet Radiometer) - NOAA

GOME (Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment) - ESA

As others have pointed out, other methods of sampling exist, including aircraft, "ozonesondes" and other sorts of ballons, rocket probes, and ground-based instruments such as spectrophotometers or LIDAR.

What a strange remark!

Just as an add on to the list others have started in this thread:
KNMI for The Netherlands or:
(for the linguistically impaired)

Such National and tax funded institutions don't have to stop commercial weather forecasters:
Meteoconsult

What a strange remark!

Just as an add on to the list others have started in this thread:
KNMI for The Netherlands or:
(for the linguistically impaired)

Such National and tax funded institutions don't have to stop commercial weather forecasters:
Meteoconsult

It a graph made by the seismological depertment of the Dutch meteorological institute during a concert at Pinkpop (also in the Netherlands). It is the result of a few hundred thousand people jumping to the beat of Faithless. As the frequency graph shows, the energy is concentratad in a very narrow band. So all it takes is a pop-concert and a few specific tunes to bring down the object of your choice :)

- Nemosoft

It a graph made by the seismological depertment of the Dutch meteorological institute during a concert at Pinkpop (also in the Netherlands). It is the result of a few hundred thousand people jumping to the beat of Faithless. As the frequency graph shows, the energy is concentratad in a very narrow band. So all it takes is a pop-concert and a few specific tunes to bring down the object of your choice :)

- Nemosoft