At some point the media should be called to task for saying something like: "The senator, a prominent round Earth skeptic...", when instead they should just say: "The senator is delusional." Keep in mind that this statement was prepared by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Their name is tarnished when science deniers co-opt it. It was not signed by climate scientists - rather it was signed by physicist and science communicators. (and of course the members of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry).
The third link, and the page that the statement was published on, is by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry . They feel that the media is giving undue credibility to the deniers by allowing them to co-opt their name. "The mission of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry is to promote scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims."
How do you figure? Have you read the literature? Have you even read the relevant IPCC section?
Methane is a feedback of CO2. If the feedback is as strong as some say then CO2 could be game over. Also, you didn't read through to the other links. Clearly scientists are doing a good job of presenting the science even in the face of those who would distort it for political ends.
Is Hanson wrong? Should we expect to have seen a statistically significant change in storm intensity already? Did I not show many cases where scientists corrected journalists who overstated?
I think you may have tinted glasses. I'm a lay person and I certainly didn't get the impression that the sky was falling after reading Mann's essay. Regarding the two other links - Cook isn't a climate scientist and Hanson didn't say anything about tornadoes except that he had been in one and that heat is the fuel for tornados but that we don't yet know if frequency will increase and we didn't have enough data to tell if there has been a trend. On the other hand, look at these links:
David Archer on methane increase: "Is this bad news for global warming? Not really, because the one real hard fact that we know about atmospheric methane is that it’s concentration isn’t rising very quickly. Methane is a short-lived gas in the atmosphere, so to make it rise, the emission flux has to continually increase " - http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
What about that Arctic methane bomb? "Shakhova et al (2013) did not find or claim to have found a 50 Gt C reservoir of methane ready to erupt in a few years. That claim, which is the basis of the Whiteman et al (2013) $60 trillion Arctic methane bomb paper, remains as unsubstantiated as ever. - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
The fact that the ice core records do not seem full of methane spikes due to high-latitude sources makes it seem like the real world is not as sensitive as we were able to set the model up to be. - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
Here's William Connoly betting against an arctic death spiral (and trying to engage in a bet against arctic ice recovery): http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/...
Here is the head of the NASA climate team explaining why he and others publicly mocked a colleague during a presentation where the colleague suggested that we may be experiencing an arctic death spiral. His excuse seems to include the fact that he was mocking both sides (read further for examples): The negative engagement stemmed both from the “green” end (which we would characterize as “things are worse than they seem”) and from the “blue” end (“things are not as bad as they seem”). We were actively deflecting negative criticisms from both blue and green “wings” throughout both meetings. - https://drive.google.com/file/...
Good examples. For instance, in Michael Mann's piece he is correcting false representations of the IPCC report by journalists. He states: "The truth is that the impact of global warming on tornadoes remains uncertain, because the underlying science is nuanced and there are competing factors that come into play."
he goes on to say: "I pointed out to the journalist that there are two key factors: warm, moist air is favorable for tornadoes, and global warming will provide more of it. But important, too, is the amount of "shear" (that is, twisting) in the wind. And whether there will, in a warmer world, be more or less of that in tornado-prone regions, during the tornado season, depends on the precise shifts that will take place in the jet stream — something that is extremely difficult to predict even with state-of-the-art theoretical climate models."
He says that if he was a betting man he would give odds slight odds to the case for greater tornado activity: "So we've got one factor that is a toss-up, and another one that appears favorable for tornado activity. The combination of them is therefore slightly on the "favorable" side."
Very germane to this thread given that the deniers are somehow claiming that three years with low tornado activity somehow a failure of climate science. With such bad media reporting by the likes of WATTS and Muller. So yes - great examples of scientists correcting media reports that err in either direction.
Not sure about Al Gore, but the IPCC did not predict an increase in tornadoes over the last three years. General consensus is that we will have an increase in CAPE and a decrease in wind shear which will mean little or no change in the overall trend.
The consensus position (as stated in your linked article) is that an increase in CAPE and a decrease in wind shear will mean little change in the trend. Three years with little tornado activity hardly overthrows this consensus. Nor does a paper finding "a possible increase in the number of days supportive of tornadic storms."
Your sources don't show a link in the scientific literature between global warming and increased tornado activity. "as National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tornado researcher Harold Brooks put it in a 2013 paper summarizing the consensus: "Climate model simulations suggest that CAPE will increase in the future and the wind shear will decrease." So even though higher overall heat might lead to the potential for more explosive storms, the expected decrease in shear meant that potential might not get realized. In other words, it was basically looking like a wash." - http://www.motherjones.com/env...
Then it should be easy to cite a case that predicts a rise in tornado activity over the last three years? Nope. They don't exist. IPCC says of tornado trend: "we don't know."
The greenies may react badly, but anyone with any knowledge of the science would probably mod you down as well. I notice that aside from posting anonymously you also decided to omit citations showing any kind of consensus on the expected tornado count over the last three years. Likely because none exist?
Here's what the IPCC actually predicted for tornadoes in 2007: (TL;DR: we cannot predict)
Scientists don't have good enough long-term observational records of tornadoes to tell, if climate change is affecting tornadoes, and climate models don't shed any light on the issue, either. Here's the relevant statement in the 2007 IPCC report:
There is insufficient evidence to determine whether trends exist in small scale phenomena such as tornadoes, hail, lighting, and dust storms. - http://www.wunderground.com/re...
He's made bad predictions (and also some frighteningly accurate ones), but it is not clear that this is one of them. What did he actually say and what was the context? We cannot know since this article provides no source. It is a recollection of a conversation that took place 30 years prior. Certainly it does not match his published literature from the time...
It is hard to know what was said or what was meant since the article is a recollection of a conversation that had taken place 30 years prior. No quotes are available.
Slashdot Mirror
At some point the media should be called to task for saying something like: "The senator, a prominent round Earth skeptic...", when instead they should just say: "The senator is delusional." Keep in mind that this statement was prepared by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Their name is tarnished when science deniers co-opt it. It was not signed by climate scientists - rather it was signed by physicist and science communicators. (and of course the members of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry).
The third link, and the page that the statement was published on, is by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry . They feel that the media is giving undue credibility to the deniers by allowing them to co-opt their name. "The mission of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry is to promote scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims."
http://news.slashdot.org/story...
Hardly a reason to presume he is exaggerating.
How do you figure? Have you read the literature? Have you even read the relevant IPCC section?
Methane is a feedback of CO2. If the feedback is as strong as some say then CO2 could be game over. Also, you didn't read through to the other links. Clearly scientists are doing a good job of presenting the science even in the face of those who would distort it for political ends.
Is Hanson wrong? Should we expect to have seen a statistically significant change in storm intensity already? Did I not show many cases where scientists corrected journalists who overstated?
I think you may have tinted glasses. I'm a lay person and I certainly didn't get the impression that the sky was falling after reading Mann's essay. Regarding the two other links - Cook isn't a climate scientist and Hanson didn't say anything about tornadoes except that he had been in one and that heat is the fuel for tornados but that we don't yet know if frequency will increase and we didn't have enough data to tell if there has been a trend. On the other hand, look at these links:
David Archer on methane increase: "Is this bad news for global warming? Not really, because the one real hard fact that we know about atmospheric methane is that it’s concentration isn’t rising very quickly. Methane is a short-lived gas in the atmosphere, so to make it rise, the emission flux has to continually increase " - http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
What about that Arctic methane bomb? "Shakhova et al (2013) did not find or claim to have found a 50 Gt C reservoir of methane ready to erupt in a few years. That claim, which is the basis of the Whiteman et al (2013) $60 trillion Arctic methane bomb paper, remains as unsubstantiated as ever. - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
The fact that the ice core records do not seem full of methane spikes due to high-latitude sources makes it seem like the real world is not as sensitive as we were able to set the model up to be. - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
Here's William Connoly betting against an arctic death spiral (and trying to engage in a bet against arctic ice recovery): http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/...
Here is the head of the NASA climate team explaining why he and others publicly mocked a colleague during a presentation where the colleague suggested that we may be experiencing an arctic death spiral. His excuse seems to include the fact that he was mocking both sides (read further for examples): The negative engagement stemmed both from the “green” end (which we would characterize as “things are worse than they seem”) and from the “blue” end (“things are not as bad as they seem”). We were actively deflecting negative criticisms from both blue and green “wings” throughout both meetings. - https://drive.google.com/file/...
Good examples. For instance, in Michael Mann's piece he is correcting false representations of the IPCC report by journalists. He states: "The truth is that the impact of global warming on tornadoes remains uncertain, because the underlying science is nuanced and there are competing factors that come into play."
he goes on to say: "I pointed out to the journalist that there are two key factors: warm, moist air is favorable for tornadoes, and global warming will provide more of it. But important, too, is the amount of "shear" (that is, twisting) in the wind. And whether there will, in a warmer world, be more or less of that in tornado-prone regions, during the tornado season, depends on the precise shifts that will take place in the jet stream — something that is extremely difficult to predict even with state-of-the-art theoretical climate models."
He says that if he was a betting man he would give odds slight odds to the case for greater tornado activity: "So we've got one factor that is a toss-up, and another one that appears favorable for tornado activity. The combination of them is therefore slightly on the "favorable" side."
Very germane to this thread given that the deniers are somehow claiming that three years with low tornado activity somehow a failure of climate science. With such bad media reporting by the likes of WATTS and Muller. So yes - great examples of scientists correcting media reports that err in either direction.
I'm not talking about the caricatures that they weave at WATTS.
In my experience they are very conservative and often do correct media reports that err in either direction.
Not sure about Al Gore, but the IPCC did not predict an increase in tornadoes over the last three years. General consensus is that we will have an increase in CAPE and a decrease in wind shear which will mean little or no change in the overall trend.
The consensus position (as stated in your linked article) is that an increase in CAPE and a decrease in wind shear will mean little change in the trend. Three years with little tornado activity hardly overthrows this consensus. Nor does a paper finding "a possible increase in the number of days supportive of tornadic storms."
Yup. They didn't like it when I showed the example they claimed didn't exist. Here it is again: http://www.realclimate.org/ima...
kind of a silly question given that it doesn't exist.
surely you would just produce the quote if one existed oh master of the googly ways.
It doesn't exist. Curious that you've invested so much in it considering...
Your sources don't show a link in the scientific literature between global warming and increased tornado activity. "as National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tornado researcher Harold Brooks put it in a 2013 paper summarizing the consensus: "Climate model simulations suggest that CAPE will increase in the future and the wind shear will decrease." So even though higher overall heat might lead to the potential for more explosive storms, the expected decrease in shear meant that potential might not get realized. In other words, it was basically looking like a wash." - http://www.motherjones.com/env...
Then it should be easy to cite a case that predicts a rise in tornado activity over the last three years? Nope. They don't exist. IPCC says of tornado trend: "we don't know."
The greenies may react badly, but anyone with any knowledge of the science would probably mod you down as well. I notice that aside from posting anonymously you also decided to omit citations showing any kind of consensus on the expected tornado count over the last three years. Likely because none exist?
Scientists don't have good enough long-term observational records of tornadoes to tell, if climate change is affecting tornadoes, and climate models don't shed any light on the issue, either. Here's the relevant statement in the 2007 IPCC report:
There is insufficient evidence to determine whether trends exist in small scale phenomena such as tornadoes, hail, lighting, and dust storms. - http://www.wunderground.com/re...
I'd love to see the quotes.
If you read his quote
Show me the quote? There is no quote - so how could I misinterpret it?
He's made bad predictions (and also some frighteningly accurate ones), but it is not clear that this is one of them. What did he actually say and what was the context? We cannot know since this article provides no source. It is a recollection of a conversation that took place 30 years prior. Certainly it does not match his published literature from the time...
It is hard to know what was said or what was meant since the article is a recollection of a conversation that had taken place 30 years prior. No quotes are available.
That's fairly basic physics. Because of the ocean we do not reach equilibrium instantaneously. Is there any evidence to suggest otherwise?
Show me the quote of what he said so that we can judge. No quote? strange...