Slashdot Mirror

I think that the GP was just making a point that many of the global warming proponents have oversold their agenda.

You can't remain credible by simultaneously implying (with "weasel" words) that each natural disaster is a direct result of global warming, while ignoring the growing arctic ice thickness and decrease in tornado activity.

Yes, nature is stochastic. But the sword cuts both ways, but pandering to sensationalism will ultimately undercut any scientific argument.

http://science.time.com/2014/0...
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/globa...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scie...
     

For those keeping score, since 2005, the year of Katrina, the number of major hurricanes hitting the US mainland stands at zero.

NOAA has that number at 7, certainly a nonzero number.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/h...

Is it still being anti science when you point out predictions that don't come true ?

It certainly is being "anti-science" when you seek to misrepresent the science as you have done here.

Within the science of climate change that regarding hurricane (and other tropical storm) formation is famously unsettled.

As far as model predictions, these seem to favour a probable decrease in the frequency of formation (along with a possible increase in intensity) (Knutson et. al.). But, in distinct contradistinction to warming itself and its attribution, I doubt any climate scientist would confidently express a relationship between AGW and storm activity at this stage.

Here is a prediction that hurricanes will get stronger and then they will get weaker. There will be more and there will be fewer.

You can't make this shit up

From a quick read it appears to be data from; World Ocean Database 2013 (National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC). Apparently available here; http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/W...

In the paper they specify what program they used and how they processed the data. It is the first part of their 'methods' section.

What was the problem?

Meteorologists say winter starts Dec 1. The meteorological seasons are tied to calendar months instead of the solstice/equinox as that's closer to the true warmest/coldest three months of the year and makes comparisons from year to year more accurate.

See NOAA or the Washington Post.

I can't verify the source, but this article suggests the machines will be Power8 based. Assuming these are the machines in question.

No, those machines are being built for the Department of Energy (DoE); NOAA, for whom the machines being discussed in this thread are being built, is part of the Department of Commerce.

It is warmer now than it's ever been in modern times, according to the people who try to measure global temperature. Here's the NOAA global temperature since 1880:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/glob/201410.gif

I realise that it's horribly cold in a lot of the US at the moment, but globally the world is very warm.

Oh really?

Other examples still exist. NOAA used tide machine No 2 to predict tides until 1966.
This machine is currently on display in the lobby of NOAA Headquarters in Silver Springs MD.

A technical explanation of the equation Tide Machines solved can be found here http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/predmach.html.
Some history and pictures can be found here:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/predhist.html
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/predma2.html

Searching google for "Tide Predicting Machine No. 2" willfind some pictures

Other examples still exist. NOAA used tide machine No 2 to predict tides until 1966.
This machine is currently on display in the lobby of NOAA Headquarters in Silver Springs MD.

A technical explanation of the equation Tide Machines solved can be found here http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/predmach.html.
Some history and pictures can be found here:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/predhist.html
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/predma2.html

Searching google for "Tide Predicting Machine No. 2" willfind some pictures

Other examples still exist. NOAA used tide machine No 2 to predict tides until 1966.
This machine is currently on display in the lobby of NOAA Headquarters in Silver Springs MD.

A technical explanation of the equation Tide Machines solved can be found here http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/predmach.html.
Some history and pictures can be found here:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/predhist.html
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/predma2.html

Searching google for "Tide Predicting Machine No. 2" willfind some pictures

"If the sea level rises even three meters most of these will be under water."

At the current rate, that will be one thousand years from now. http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/f...

The current NWS computer is only capable of 0.21 petaflops.

And no source for his (Cliff Mass's) claim of performance. As far as I know the US National Weather Service (NWS) in fact operates multiple clusters, I don't think they have any classic singular "supercomputers," but then again neither does anyone else anymore, since the original Cray supercomputer heydays.

The various models are run on several clusters AFAIK. I believe North American Mesoscale, NAMS and Global Forecast System, GFS may run on the primary operational cluster, but I was under the impression that other models like Rapid Refresh, High Resolution Rapid Refresh (RAP/HRRR) were run on a different cluster. I believe climate models are run on separate ("non-operational forecast") clusters as they don't have the same timeliness constraints. I'm unsure about oceanographic (wave, sea surface temperature) models. See their Environmental Modeling Center

Meanwhile the number of record low temps outnumbers record high temps 2 to 1 in 2014.

Actually it's now about 1.45 to 1 in 2014.

I believe Mr. Hansen left shortly after this.

About nine months later.

I believe Mr. Hansen left shortly after this.

About nine months later.

I put my car in the summer sun all the time. It never gets that hot. Ever. You've had other people tell you the same thing. Website after website after website show temperatures levelling out at around 50C, yet you claim temperatures three times that. At first I thought you might be confusing Fahrenheit and Celsius, which is why I stressed on boiling water, but you persist.

You ask what latitude has to do with solar heating of a car. At noon on the spring equinox, the sun is going to be beating straight down on the roof of a car. On the same day at the North pole, the sunlight is going to be travelling horizontally straight through the car. Even at the peak of summer, the sun is only 23.5 degrees above the horizon. The bulk of the sun's rays are going to travel straight through the car. Latitude is crucial to how much energy the car can absorb.

You say that the air temperature is irrelevant to the heat inside the car. This is clearly false. Cars are not perfect insulators. Heat flows out of them, and the rate at which the heat flows out is proportional to the temperature difference between the inside and the outside temperatures. So, in the cold of the arctic, the heat is going to flow out faster than it would in the Arizona desert.

You claim Siberia in the summer is one of the hottest places on Earth. You ask if the dash implies the outside of the vehicle. You claim that the windows of a car are always perpendicular to the sun.

I can come to only one conclusion...


I have been trolled.

Not surprisingly the scientists that work on weather models care very much about their accuracy. The GFS model's peformance is constantly reviewed: http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/G...

Alright... let us compare the sea ice then first:
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sea...

I compared the two most distant dates in the system. 1995 December with 2013 December. Look at the LACK of a difference.

Now am I saying there is no difference? I wouldn't know... but the images are almost identical. Look at the extent of the ice around Alaska in both images. Basically the same.

Now again. I am not saying that the data = reality. However, you want to get scientific, then you need to base your argument on something.

So part "B" I think this is... that the sea ice is reduced... seems questionable to me. Let me get something from 2014 though just so we're talking about this year.

Okay, the latest this data covers is July of this year. I am comparing that to 1996,97,98,99... they're all a little different but the ice pack in july of 2014 does not appear unusual. So why were walruses not beaching themselves then?

As to ocean acidification, that doesn't back up your argument. That just gives you one more thing to try and prove. Furthermore, I dont' think it has anything to do with beaching. After all, that has something to do with food sources... not whether the walruses actually find the water toxic. But you know what... if you can show me something about ocean acidification harming the bodies or irritating the bodies of walruses then we might have something to talk about. Short of that, what you have is that it hurts some shell fish.

Keep an open mind. I could be totally wrong and you could be the person that shows me how wrong I am. But by the same token you could be wrong too. Keep an open mind and we can have a real discussion. ;)

They noted less sea ice, they noted the walruses, they noted AGW, and just linked A to B to C without bothering to any science in between. That is my problem.

It's probably completely bogus. The sea ice isn't far from normal for this time of year, and higher than in other recent years. It's higher than in 2005, not quite as high as 2006.

Why do you bring up all of the Arctic to tell us there must be sea ice around Alaska - there fucking isn't: http://pafc.arh.noaa.gov/ice.p...

Or, to quote TFA: "In recent years, sea ice has receded north beyond shallow continental shelf waters and into Arctic Ocean water, where depths exceed 2 miles and walrus cannot dive to the bottom."

But nooo, the walrus are just taking a hiatus on the beach because they are imagining things. When they should be swimming north a couple hundred miles.

Ring Ring, I have a call for you... They have been rising: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/f...

While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century. [...] Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 0.04 to 0.1 inches per year since 1900.

You may choose to argue that is too small of a change for you to care, but records say they have been rising. Get your head out of your ass

No warming for 18 years? Then how could we have just had the warmest summer ever recorded with continued melting of ice worldwide and rising sea levels? I think this was all predicted by the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming, and is now being observed. If we see the warming stop, and the melting and sea level rise slow significantly, then we can talk about rethinking the hypothesis. Let me know when that happens.

"Continued melting of ice worldwide"?

WRONG!!!!!!>

Don't you hate it when reality intrudes?

Oops!

...

“All the climate models say it should be going down and it’s actually going up, and it’s making news,”

...

Wait? The models say Antarctic ice should be shrinking, yet it's GROWING!?!?!?!

Get this - THE MODELS ARE WRONG.

No warming for 18 years? Then how could we have just had the warmest summer ever recorded with continued melting of ice worldwide and rising sea levels? I think this was all predicted by the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming, and is now being observed. If we see the warming stop, and the melting and sea level rise slow significantly, then we can talk about rethinking the hypothesis. Let me know when that happens.

Which "AGW denying bit" would that be? It can't be the part about observation because it hasn't gotten any warmer for the past 18 years, so there would be no warming to be observed.

When one activist website tell you that the earth is warming, and another activist website tells you that the earth isn't warming, it's a good idea to check the actual scientific data to determine which activist website is getting the facts wrong. Here's an 18 year graph. The earth has in fact been warming over the last 18 years.

Here's the 50 year graph. That's a neat website that lets you generate graphs over any date range. If you want to play with it, just be sure to update the year-values for both series 1 (the red graph) and series 2 (the green graph).

There was also an unexpected surge in heat being pulled from the atmosphere into the deep ocean. This has recently pulled a vast amount of heat off of the typical graphs of surface-level atmospheric temperature. This is why air-temperature-graphs gives a false impression of somewhat slower warming the last few years.

Air is extremely low density. Very little of the global heat resides in the atmosphere, and what does show up in the air is extremely variable as heat shifts between the air and the land&sea. In fact the atmosphere only accounts for 2% of global heat content. The land surface temperatures are about 8%. The massive oceans account for 90% of the planet's heat content. Here's a graph of ocean heat over the last 50-odd years. The vast majority of heat ultimately goes into the oceans. That graph shows that there has been absolutely no slowing in the rate of global heat increase. Global warming hasn't paused. Global warming hasn't stopped. Global warming hasn't slowed.

There doesn't exist ONE scientific body of national or international standing that still denies man-made global warming. The last national or international scientific body to dissent was, comically, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists back in 2007. Yep, even the oil geologists stopped denying it seven years ago.

-

I guess I should have linked the New Jersey landfall update instead of the "Sandy becomes post-tropical" update. The landfall update claims sustained winds of 80 mph, which is well within the category 1 hurricane range.

"Superstorm"* Sandy

* So named because it wasn't even strong enough to count as a real hurricane...

On the contrary, Sandy was a category 2 hurricane when it made landfall on Cuba. Moreover, it still had hurricane-force winds when it made landfall in New Jersey; the only reason it wasn't called a "hurricane" was that it was post-tropical. In other words, it was as severe as a hurricane, but a different kind of storm.

"Superstorm"* Sandy

* So named because it wasn't even strong enough to count as a real hurricane...

On the contrary, Sandy was a category 2 hurricane when it made landfall on Cuba. Moreover, it still had hurricane-force winds when it made landfall in New Jersey; the only reason it wasn't called a "hurricane" was that it was post-tropical. In other words, it was as severe as a hurricane, but a different kind of storm.

The raw, unadjusted temperature records always have said 1937. It's the adjustments that are questionable, not the historical record.

This would be complete bullshit.

Unadjusted.
Adjusted.
The adjustments make a small difference, but over the last 50 years, that only accounts for about 0.01C of the 1.14C warming trend.

The raw, unadjusted temperature records always have said 1937. It's the adjustments that are questionable, not the historical record.

This would be complete bullshit.

Unadjusted.
Adjusted.
The adjustments make a small difference, but over the last 50 years, that only accounts for about 0.01C of the 1.14C warming trend.

They are predicting up to possibly a G3 storm (so kp on order of 7, you can find various kp maps online where the aurora can extend to) which might be visible on the horizon in Boston. Keep an eye on aurora models, which now display a view line about where the limit of viewing would be. But that site updates irregularly through the day, as it is calculated from polar passes of weather satellites, and can be any where from half an hour to several hours between updates. It is also generating those maps from observations along a single line (the orbit of the particular satellite), so it is a bit of extrapolation too.

Bah ... it's mostly static content. The sites that get hammered on these sorts of things are:

• NOAA SWPC
• CCMC's iSWA
• Helioviewer
• SDO's daily movies

... etc. The various 'latest images' pages for SDO, SOHO, STEREO, etc. won't be as interesting as the imagers that are that tight in have already seen the good stuff (for that flare; there might be more from that same active region; you can track that at Solar Monitor or iSolSearch)... there *might* be something from this CME still to come in the HI1 and HI2 instruments from STEREO, though.

You might also want to check The Sun Today, which tends to have good explanations of what's happened, and they have a few movies for this event.

(disclaimer : I work at the Solar Data Analysis Center, and have worked on some of the sites that I've mentioned, and know the sysadmins for all but one of 'em)

Here's a terrific animation from NOAA putting the current CO2 levels in the context of the last million years or so. It takes a few minutes to watch, but see it to the end.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html

tldr: current CO2 levels are about 40% higher than the maximum levels seen in the last ten ice age cycles.

At some point, they did, but they've since backed off of the claim. Current limits: US Maritime Limits & Boundaries

You haven't reviewed the data, you can't, its not public, so stop acting like you know any better than I do what the truth is.

All of the data. ALL OF IT. Is public. You are an idiot.

http://www.noaa.gov/climate.ht...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Or even just google of wikipedia for it. It's all out there.

The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

Reading your link, their claim amounts to adding a new correction term to bring them in sync (that's what the new green line and range on the graph is). Which means they need another couple of decades to test the new modified models to see if they are sufficiently accurate. "We're right because we can add a correction term to cover this divergence that we didn't predict before" is entirely unconvincing. I find it highly suspicious that they chose to claim 2001 as the start, which doesn't match the date anyone else is using for the start of the current pause, 1999.

And yet the melting of ice and sea level rise continue to accelerate as predicted by AGW.

You know that there's a drop down right there at the top that lets you look at previous years' reports

Some "hiatus" with 2013 and 2012 and 2010 and 2009 and 2008 and 2007 and 2006 and 2005 and 2004 and 2003 all making the list of top 10 hottest years since we started measuring.

Not that it matters, because you repetitive dolts have exactly zero null hypotheses that you've got any hope of establishing.

You could, you know, look at the sources as noted in the graphic.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-...

a) there isn't one. the most that can be said is it's a concept misunderstood by deniers who have no clue what they are talking about.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad...

b) wrong.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-...

c1) wrong. they are NOT naturally absorbed. if they were, the planet would not be warming, leading to ever increasing amounts of stored energy unable to re-radiate out into space. the natural carbon cycle deals out no where near the amount of CO2 humans do. 40 billion tons. That's the YEARLY output of human activity. Imagine the biggest aircraft you can think of...they weigh ~100,000 tons. So now imagine 400,000 of those aircraft carriers. That's the weight of CO2 that we pump into the atmosphere yearly. Alternatively, think of a cubic volume of gas (CO2)....18 miles on each side (that's ~95k feet high...almost to space)...that's also 40 billion tons. And we do that every year. And before you spout some bullshit about volcanoes...no. Volcanic yearly output of the entire planet is only ~3 billion tons of CO2.

c2) the rest of c was pretty stupid, and just frankly not worth it.

Don't be so sure. People seem to think nukes can destroy hurricanes: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/C5c.html. Maybe some think an airstrike on such a lab would be a good idea.

actual warming has kind of flatlined,

I keep hearing this, but I really don't see it.

It's like the repeated statement that "there has been no warming [since the record-setting global average in 1998]". Nobody ever claimed that global temperature would rise monotonically year-on-year; fortunately, we are allowed to look at the trend line across years and draw the quite obvious conclusion that yes, temperatures have been rising in the last two decades as well.

(You'd think the 1998 argument would lose steam after the 2005 and 2010 global temperature anomalies actually surpassed the 1998 record, but I guess it was never an argument made in good faith.)

Here's some help. It's not too hard to figure this stuff out, instead of just asking questions and expecting people to hand answers to you, while you act all indignant in the mean-time.

Calm down. It's been worked out for your viewing pleasure.

Don't get caught unaware by the next major CME. Read the space weather forecast from NOAA.

Manabe et al. 1991 page 811: "... sea surface temperature hardly changes and sea ice slightly increases near the Antarctic Continent in response to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide."

The raw data shows the same warming trend. And the adjustments are there for a good reason - otherwise the deniers would be complaining even more about the heat island effect and siting / instrumentation problems than they even are today (oh, and to head people off, the warming trend gets even stronger when you outright remove the "bad", "artificially hot" meteorological stations the deniers complain about). And all of the adjustments are cross-checked by a variety of peer-reviewed verification methods. For example, the heat island effect on stations is (among other methods) cross-checked by comparing windy days with still days, as wind greatly reduces the heat island effect.

In short, to anyone who thinks they've got some killer reason why the adjustments are wrong, simply write a paper, go through peer-review like everyone else has to do, and viola, you're part of the actual scientific debate and I'll take you seriously. Until then...

Latest from the NOAA site: The contiguous U.S. average temperature for the first half of 2014 was 47.6F, 0.1F above the 20th century average. This ranked near the middle value in the 120-year period of record, and marked the coldest first half of any year since 1993. Just sayin'. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

So, you like them because they're untainted by facts? Good point. No, great point, wouldn't want to be led astray by facts.

Actually the summary is fairly untainted by facts. For instance:

Arctic sea ice is trending near record lows for this time of year, abnormally warm ocean water helped spawn the earliest hurricane ever recorded to make landfall in North Carolina, and a rash of heat waves have plagued cities from India to California to the Middle East.

Yikes, that all sounds alarming right?

Except...

1) Arctic sea ice is actually currently above last year's level, which was already a rebound of over 25 million square km more than the previous year at the minimum extents.

2) The ocean waters in the North Atlantic hurricane region are right around average for this time of year, by no means "abnormally warm".

3) "Rashes of heat waves plague" various places every summer, and always have. NOAA recently reinstated 1934 as the hottest year in the US on record.

The article attacking the Heartland data does have a minor point, but it is absolutely true that temperatures have been essentially flat for around 17 years, while CO2 has been at the highest levels in history. There have been quite a few peer reviewed papers trying to explain this pause, so it's clearly a real phenomena. We'll see if it continues, the El Nino this year is now expected to be a fairly minor event.

At this time, the forecasters anticipate El Niño will peak at weak-to-moderate strength during the late fall and early winter (3-month values of the Niño-3.4 index between 0.5oC and 1.4oC).