El grupo al cual envías entradas es un grupo Usenet. Si envías mensajes a este grupo, cualquier usuario de Internet podrá ver tu dirección de correo electrónico
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:13:50 -0600, "S. Caro" <sc...@muxnet.com> wrote: >Of course, some may think this is bad news.
>- North Atlantic Hurricane Season slowest since 1997
>- Global and Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Activity >remains near 30-year historical lows -- three years in a row >now of considerably below-average activity globally.
>But don't worry! This is only because of La Nana/El Nino and NOTHING >else. We know this because the IPCC climate models are absolutely >infallible. The scientists who created the models know everything >there is to know about planet wide climate.
If you actually followed the scientific papers, you would know two things: hurricane activity _does_ correlate with the El Nino oscillation, and climate researchers are very uncertain as to whether global warming will increase or decrease the North Atlantic hurricane pattern. There is a complex interaction between sea surface temperatures in different parts of the world, and subtle changes in models produce a wide range of outputs: more strong hurricanes, more weak hurricanes, fewer hurricanes but stronger, and fewer hurricanes but weaker. You won't find climate _scientists_ making unequivocal statements about global warming and hurricane patterns. (What all agree on is that even small increases in sea level will result in greater economic harm from hurricanes, however.) _________________________________________________
Take your horse blinders off..there has been 3 typoons (S. pacific for HURRICANES) already that pounded the phillipines and vietnam. Global warmong and it's effects apply to the whole earth, not just the US !!
> - North Atlantic Hurricane Season slowest since 1997
> - Global and Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Activity > remains near 30-year historical lows -- three years in a row > now of considerably below-average activity globally.
> But don't worry! This is only because of La Nana/El Nino and NOTHING > else. We know this because the IPCC climate models are absolutely > infallible. The scientists who created the models know everything > there is to know about planet wide climate.
On Nov 1, 10:13 am, "S. Caro" <sc...@muxnet.com> wrote:
> Of course, some may think this is bad news.
> - North Atlantic Hurricane Season slowest since 1997
> - Global and Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Activity > remains near 30-year historical lows -- three years in a row > now of considerably below-average activity globally.
> But don't worry! This is only because of La Nana/El Nino and NOTHING > else. We know this because the IPCC climate models are absolutely > infallible. The scientists who created the models know everything > there is to know about planet wide climate.
Rather than reading the ramblings of a disgraced TV news reader, I suggest the following papers which document what scientists have said about the relationship between hurricanes and global warming
Emanuel, K. Environmental Factors Affecting Tropical Cyclone Power Dissipation, 2007 Journal of Climate DOI: 10.1175/2007JCLI1571.1
Vecchi, G, and T. Knutson, On Estimates of Historical North Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Activity, 2008, Journal of Climate DOI: 10.1175/2008JCLI2178.1
Simulated reduction in Atlantic hurricane frequency under twenty-first- century warming conditions, Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo202
The IPCC report states that the link between hurricanes and global warming is tenuous, but possible.
S. Caro wrote: > Of course, some may think this is bad news.
> - North Atlantic Hurricane Season slowest since 1997
> - Global and Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Activity > remains near 30-year historical lows -- three years in a row > now of considerably below-average activity globally.
> But don't worry! This is only because of La Nana/El Nino and NOTHING > else. We know this because the IPCC climate models are absolutely > infallible. The scientists who created the models know everything > there is to know about planet wide climate.
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:13:50 -0600, "S. Caro" <sc...@muxnet.com> wrote:
>>Of course, some may think this is bad news.
>>- North Atlantic Hurricane Season slowest since 1997
>>- Global and Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Activity >>remains near 30-year historical lows -- three years in a row >>now of considerably below-average activity globally.
>>But don't worry! This is only because of La Nana/El Nino and NOTHING >>else. We know this because the IPCC climate models are absolutely >>infallible. The scientists who created the models know everything >>there is to know about planet wide climate.
> If you actually followed the scientific papers, you would know two > things: hurricane activity _does_ correlate with the El Nino > oscillation, and climate researchers are very uncertain as to whether > global warming will increase or decrease the North Atlantic hurricane > pattern. There is a complex interaction between sea surface temperatures > in different parts of the world, and subtle changes in models produce a > wide range of outputs: more strong hurricanes, more weak hurricanes, > fewer hurricanes but stronger, and fewer hurricanes but weaker. You > won't find climate _scientists_ making unequivocal statements about > global warming and hurricane patterns.
"It is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense on average and have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes."
That's NOAA, folks.
Just another prediction of climate science that has so far been proved to be incorrect.
Are their any specific predictions of global warming that you believe to be true, and that we can use as a test of the theory? Or do the predictions of "climate science" change so quickly that there are no specific predictions that believers in AGW have that can be used to test the theory?
> "It is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the > coming century to be more intense on average and have higher rainfall > rates than present-day hurricanes."
> That's NOAA, folks.
> Just another prediction of climate science that has so far been proved > to be incorrect.
Actually there is data supporting that prediction.
The IPCC report states that the link between hurricanes and global warming is tenuous, but possible.
_____________________________________ No it doesn't. This is what it states:
"Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical sea surface temperatures."
Page 15 of the IPCC summary report.
I guess that now you know what it actually says, you must think the IPCC report is wrong, as it is in clear conflict with the other links you posted which said there was no connection.
What else in the IPCC report do you consider incorrect?
> The IPCC report states that the link between hurricanes and global > warming is tenuous, but possible.
> _____________________________________ > No it doesn't. This is what it states:
> "Based on a range of models, it is likely that future > tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will > become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds > and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing > increases of tropical sea surface temperatures."
> Page 15 of the IPCC summary report.
> I guess that now you know what it actually says, you must think the IPCC > report is wrong, as it is in clear conflict with the other links you > posted which said there was no connection.
> What else in the IPCC report do you consider incorrect?
Nice to see you supporting the IPCC report, Peter.
>"It is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the coming >century to be more intense on average and have higher rainfall rates than >present-day hurricanes."
>That's NOAA, folks.
>Just another prediction of climate science that has so far been proved to be >incorrect.
If you would actually read the paper you quote (from which you have provided a single, out-of-context snippet), you'd see that it is considering considerably higher warming levels than we have seen so far. It is a prediction based on good work, but which remains speculative- a point that the author is careful to emphasize in his conclusions.
Climate research papers generally provide level of confidence values for their predictions, which range from very high (for example, the predictions for actual temperature increases), to much lower (as in this case). _________________________________________________
>> "It is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the coming >> century to be more intense on average and have higher rainfall rates than >> present-day hurricanes."
>> That's NOAA, folks.
>> Just another prediction of climate science that has so far been proved to >> be incorrect.
> Actually there is data supporting that prediction.
Gee, the person who I responded to believes:
1. That AGW is correct. 2. That AGW does *not* predict more intense hurricanes. 3. That hurricanes have *not* increased (indeed, we are at a 30 year low) 4. Therefore AGW is correct.
You seem to believe:
1. That AGW is correct 2. That AGW predicts more intense hurricanes 3. There is evidence that hurricanes have increased in intensity 4. Therefore AGW is correct.
Is that the situation?
Any of you other AGW believers out there?
If so, do you believe that:
1. AGW predicts an increase in the intensity of hurricanes. 2. These have increased. 3. Therefore AGW is correct
*** OR ****
1. AGW does *not* predict an increase in the intensity of hurricanes 2. Their intensity has *not* increased. 3. Therefore AGW is correct.
> 1. That AGW is correct. > 2. That AGW does *not* predict more intense hurricanes. > 3. That hurricanes have *not* increased (indeed, we are at a 30 year low) > 4. Therefore AGW is correct.
> You seem to believe:
> 1. That AGW is correct > 2. That AGW predicts more intense hurricanes > 3. There is evidence that hurricanes have increased in intensity > 4. Therefore AGW is correct.
> Is that the situation?
What I "believe" is unimportant. The science indicates that the current global warming correlates with the fossil fuel burning that came with the industrial revolution.
The source of heating doesn't matter to hurricanes... the higher global temperatures are likely to increase hurricane frequency and intensity.
Yarrow Axforda,1, Jason P. Brinerb, Colin A. Cookec, Donna R. Francisd, Neal Micheluttie, Gifford H. Millera,f, John P. Smole, Elizabeth K. Thomasb, Cheryl R. Wilsone and Alexander P. Wolfec
Abstract
The Arctic is currently undergoing dramatic environmental transformations, but it remains largely unknown how these changes compare with long-term natural variability. Here we present a lake sediment sequence from the Canadian Arctic that records warm periods of the past 200,000 years, including the 20th century. This record provides a perspective on recent changes in the Arctic and predates by approximately 80,000 years the oldest stratigraphically intact ice core recovered from the Greenland Ice Sheet. The early Holocene and the warmest part of the Last Interglacial (Marine Isotope Stage or MIS 5e) were the only periods of the past 200,000 years with summer temperatures comparable to or exceeding today's at this site. Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the past three interglacial periods were characterized by similar trajectories in temperature, lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of which tracked orbitally-driven solar insolation. In recent decades, however, the study site has deviated from this recurring natural pattern and has entered an environmental regime that is unique within the past 200 millennia.
"There are periods of time reflected in this sediment core that demonstrate that the climate was as warm as today," said Briner, "but that was due to natural causes, having to do with well-understood patterns of the Earth's orbit around the sun. The whole ecosystem has now shifted and the ecosystem we see during just the last few decades is different from those seen during any of the past warm intervals."
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >Any of you other AGW believers out there?
I wouldn't use the word "believer". Everybody who understands the science knows that AGW is occurring. Calling somebody an "AGW believer" is like calling somebody an "evolution believer" or a "heliocentricism believer". It's a misuse of the word.
>If so, do you believe that:
>1. AGW predicts an increase in the intensity of hurricanes. >2. These have increased. >3. Therefore AGW is correct
>*** OR ****
>1. AGW does *not* predict an increase in the intensity of hurricanes >2. Their intensity has *not* increased. >3. Therefore AGW is correct.
Neither. Different climate models currently produce different predictions about how global warming will impact the intensity and frequency of North Atlantic hurricanes. There is good work supporting the prediction that intensity will increase with an increase in sea surface temperatures, but it remains uncertain whether sea surface temperatures will increase, because global warming also impacts ocean currents. Thus, the model predictions are not considered very reliable yet. This remains one of the most active areas of study.
Nobody would ever use these predictions to determine if "AGW is correct". That's pretty much a given, based on actual observation. The point of the models is to ascertain what effects we can expect from it in the future, given a range of responses (from none to aggressive). _________________________________________________
>> The IPCC report states that the link between hurricanes and global >> warming is tenuous, but possible.
>> _____________________________________ >> No it doesn't. This is what it states:
>> "Based on a range of models, it is likely that future >> tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will >> become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds >> and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing >> increases of tropical sea surface temperatures."
>> Page 15 of the IPCC summary report.
>> I guess that now you know what it actually says, you must think the IPCC >> report is wrong, as it is in clear conflict with the other links you >> posted which said there was no connection.
>> What else in the IPCC report do you consider incorrect?
> Nice to see you supporting the IPCC report, Peter.
I made no comment upon whether I support it.
I just pointed out that (contrary to what was stated) the report specifically predicts an increase in the intensity of cyclones.
This completely undermines the argument that cyclones have not increased in intensity, and AGW predicts they would not, so therefore this is supporting evidence for AGW. Its not.
>>"It is likely that greenhouse warming will cause hurricanes in the coming >>century to be more intense on average and have higher rainfall rates than >>present-day hurricanes."
>>That's NOAA, folks.
>>Just another prediction of climate science that has so far been proved to >>be >>incorrect.
> If you would actually read the paper you quote (from which you have > provided a single, out-of-context snippet), you'd see that it is > considering considerably higher warming levels than we have seen so far.
Ohh, so the fact that the IPCC report is wrong about cyclones is because it is wrong about how much warming we would see?
Lets add this one to the list of failed predictions of climate "science".
> It is a prediction based on good work, but which remains speculative- a > point that the author is careful to emphasize in his conclusions.
No he doesn't.
> Climate research papers generally provide level of confidence values for > their predictions, which range from very high (for example, the > predictions for actual temperature increases), to much lower (as in this > case).
Where is the level of confidence stated for the IPCC's predictions for hurricane intensity?
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>> Nice to see you supporting the IPCC report, Peter.
> I made no comment upon whether I support it.
> I just pointed out that (contrary to what was stated) the report > specifically predicts an increase in the intensity of cyclones.
> This completely undermines the argument that cyclones have not increased > in intensity, and AGW predicts they would not, so therefore this is > supporting evidence for AGW. Its not.
Occasional sea-surface warming in central Pacific linked with more, stronger hurricanes in North Atlantic
By Sid Perkins Web edition Thursday, July 2nd, 2009
Warmer-than-normal sea-surface temperatures in the central Pacific lead to stronger, more frequent tropical storms and hurricanes in the North Atlantic, a new analysis suggests. Unlike the more familiar El Niño, or warming in the equatorial region of the eastern and central Pacific, trends in central Pacific warming alone are more predictable and may offer forecasters a more accurate method of anticipating hurricane activity during the upcoming year, scientists say.
The sea-surface warming characteristic of El Niño typically stretches along the equator from the coast of South America to the international date line, with the largest temperature anomalies in the eastern Pacific. During El Niño episodes, the number of tropical storms and hurricanes — both called cyclones — is lower than average across the North Atlantic, says Peter J. Webster, an atmospheric scientist at Georgia Tech in Atlanta. But when the equatorial sea-surface warming is concentrated only around the international date line, hurricane activity is much higher than normal, Webster and his colleagues report in the July 3 Science.
“This is a pattern that we [scientists] hadn’t really recognized before,” comments Chris Landsea, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA’s hurricane research division in Miami. He says the finding is “an advance in the field.”
Webster and his colleagues analyzed patterns in North Atlantic cyclone activity from 1950 through 2006 during August, September and October, the height of hurricane season. As many previous studies had noted, the number and strength of tropical cyclones were markedly lower in El Niño years than during La Niña episodes, when sea-surface temperatures in the eastern and central Pacific are substantially cooler than normal. Unlike previous research, says Webster, the new study reveals that when sea-surface warming is confined to the central Pacific, hurricane activity is higher, particularly in the Caribbean, the Gulf of Mexico and along the eastern coast of the United States.
Global weather models suggest how El Niño and other phenomena affect hurricanes thousands of kilometers away, Webster explains. During El Niño events, high-altitude wind shear over the North Atlantic is stronger than normal, which tends to disrupt the formation and strengthening of tropical storms there — and this explains the lower-than-average cyclone activity then, he notes. During La Niña years, wind shear is low, and storms more readily form and gain strength. When sea-surface warming is confined to the central Pacific, wind shear in the North Atlantic region where cyclones form is about average but is not large enough to totally disrupt cyclone formation.
Identifying the new central Pacific warming trend is important because the transition between El Niño warming and La Niña cooling isn’t always predictable, says Webster. Sometimes, just when it looks like a shift will occur from warm to cool, for example, temperatures will swing back to warm again, thwarting forecasters’ attempts to predict cyclone activity for the upcoming season. But shifts in central Pacific warming seem to follow a more predictable path, the new analysis suggests.
The new research “is a well-done analysis of the impact of sea-surface temperatures on Atlantic hurricanes,” Landsea says. Also, he notes, the new findings may help explain the 2004 hurricane season. That year, the Pacific experienced a weak El Niño, but sea-surface temperatures in the central Pacific were warmer than normal and cyclone activity in the North Atlantic was unexpectedly strong.
Data suggest that episodes of central Pacific warming have occurred more frequently since the 1960s, Webster notes. Because relatively few sea-surface temperature data were collected in that region before the 1950s, scientists can’t yet discern whether this increased frequency is a symptom of long-term global climate change or is merely part of a long-term climate cycle called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which typically lasts around two to three decades.
>> 1. That AGW is correct. >> 2. That AGW does *not* predict more intense hurricanes. >> 3. That hurricanes have *not* increased (indeed, we are at a 30 year low) >> 4. Therefore AGW is correct.
>> You seem to believe:
>> 1. That AGW is correct >> 2. That AGW predicts more intense hurricanes >> 3. There is evidence that hurricanes have increased in intensity >> 4. Therefore AGW is correct.
>> Is that the situation?
> What I "believe" is unimportant. The science indicates that the > current global warming correlates with the fossil fuel burning > that came with the industrial revolution.
"Correlates".
There is a (positive, FWIW) correlation between electricity consumption and car ownership (as both correlate positively with income), this doesn't prove that buying a car increases your electricity consumption, or even vica versa.
> The source of heating doesn't matter to hurricanes... the higher > global temperatures are likely to increase hurricane frequency and > intensity.
So you say the person who said AGW does NOT predict an increase in the intensity of cyclones is wrong?
> Yarrow Axforda,1, Jason P. Brinerb, Colin A. Cookec, Donna R. Francisd, > Neal Micheluttie, Gifford H. Millera,f, John P. Smole, Elizabeth K. > Thomasb, Cheryl R. Wilsone and Alexander P. Wolfec
> Abstract
> The Arctic is currently undergoing dramatic environmental transformations, > but it remains largely unknown how these changes compare with long-term > natural variability. Here we present a lake sediment sequence from the > Canadian Arctic that records warm periods of the past 200,000 years, > including the 20th century. This record provides a perspective on recent > changes in the Arctic and predates by approximately 80,000 years the > oldest stratigraphically intact ice core recovered from the Greenland Ice > Sheet. The early Holocene and the warmest part of the Last Interglacial > (Marine Isotope Stage or MIS 5e) were the only periods of the past 200,000 > years with summer temperatures comparable to or exceeding today's at this > site. Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the past three > interglacial periods were characterized by similar trajectories in > temperature, lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of which tracked > orbitally-driven solar insolation. In recent decades, however, the study > site has deviated from this recurring natural pattern and has entered an > environmental regime that is unique within the past 200 millennia.
> "There are periods of time reflected in this sediment core that > demonstrate that the climate was as warm as today," said Briner, "but that > was due to natural causes, having to do with well-understood patterns of > the Earth's orbit around the sun. The whole ecosystem has now shifted and > the ecosystem we see during just the last few decades is different from > those seen during any of the past warm intervals."
So, couldn't find anything about hurricanes, so in typical crank style just decided to change the topic?
>>> 1. That AGW is correct. >>> 2. That AGW does *not* predict more intense hurricanes. >>> 3. That hurricanes have *not* increased (indeed, we are at a 30 year >>> low) >>> 4. Therefore AGW is correct.
>>> You seem to believe:
>>> 1. That AGW is correct >>> 2. That AGW predicts more intense hurricanes >>> 3. There is evidence that hurricanes have increased in intensity >>> 4. Therefore AGW is correct.
>>> Is that the situation?
>> What I "believe" is unimportant. The science indicates that the >> current global warming correlates with the fossil fuel burning >> that came with the industrial revolution.
> "Correlates".
> There is a (positive, FWIW) correlation between electricity consumption > and car ownership (as both correlate positively with income), this > doesn't prove that buying a car increases your electricity consumption, > or even vica versa.
>> The source of heating doesn't matter to hurricanes... the higher >> global temperatures are likely to increase hurricane frequency and >> intensity.
> So you say the person who said AGW does NOT predict an increase in the > intensity of cyclones is wrong?
>> Yarrow Axforda,1, Jason P. Brinerb, Colin A. Cookec, Donna R. >> Francisd, Neal Micheluttie, Gifford H. Millera,f, John P. Smole, >> Elizabeth K. Thomasb, Cheryl R. Wilsone and Alexander P. Wolfec
>> Abstract
>> The Arctic is currently undergoing dramatic environmental >> transformations, but it remains largely unknown how these changes >> compare with long-term natural variability. Here we present a lake >> sediment sequence from the Canadian Arctic that records warm periods >> of the past 200,000 years, including the 20th century. This record >> provides a perspective on recent changes in the Arctic and predates by >> approximately 80,000 years the oldest stratigraphically intact ice >> core recovered from the Greenland Ice Sheet. The early Holocene and >> the warmest part of the Last Interglacial (Marine Isotope Stage or MIS >> 5e) were the only periods of the past 200,000 years with summer >> temperatures comparable to or exceeding today's at this site. >> Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the past three >> interglacial periods were characterized by similar trajectories in >> temperature, lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of which tracked >> orbitally-driven solar insolation. In recent decades, however, the >> study site has deviated from this recurring natural pattern and has >> entered an environmental regime that is unique within the past 200 >> millennia.
>> "There are periods of time reflected in this sediment core that >> demonstrate that the climate was as warm as today," said Briner, "but >> that was due to natural causes, having to do with well-understood >> patterns of the Earth's orbit around the sun. The whole ecosystem has >> now shifted and the ecosystem we see during just the last few decades >> is different from those seen during any of the past warm intervals."
> So, couldn't find anything about hurricanes, so in typical crank style > just decided to change the topic?
We're not talk'n cars and electricity... we are talking about recent changes in a remote Arctic lake are unique within the past 200,000 years that indicate the changes are due to human activity in the form of CO2 from fossil fuel burning.
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:18:42 +1100, "Peter Webb" > <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>Any of you other AGW believers out there?
> I wouldn't use the word "believer". Everybody who understands the > science knows that AGW is occurring.
I have hear astrologists make the same claim. Everybody who really understands astrology believes it is correct.
> Calling somebody an "AGW believer" > is like calling somebody an "evolution believer" or a "heliocentricism > believer". It's a misuse of the word.
You are offended because I call people who believe in AGW "AGW believers"?
>>If so, do you believe that:
>>1. AGW predicts an increase in the intensity of hurricanes. >>2. These have increased. >>3. Therefore AGW is correct
>>*** OR ****
>>1. AGW does *not* predict an increase in the intensity of hurricanes >>2. Their intensity has *not* increased. >>3. Therefore AGW is correct.
> Neither. Different climate models currently produce different > predictions about how global warming will impact the intensity and > frequency of North Atlantic hurricanes.
Ohh, so AGW predicts that the intensity of hurricanes will increase, and AGW also predicts that the intensity of hurricanes will NOT increase?
> There is good work supporting > the prediction that intensity will increase with an increase in sea > surface temperatures, but it remains uncertain whether sea surface > temperatures will increase, because global warming also impacts ocean > currents. Thus, the model predictions are not considered very reliable > yet. This remains one of the most active areas of study.
So IPCC and NOAA are quite possibly wrong?
What else in the IPCC report is quite possibly wrong, or is it just the bit about hurricanes?
> Nobody would ever use these predictions to determine if "AGW is > correct". That's pretty much a given, based on actual observation.
Well, not observation of hurricanes, obviously.
The IPCC report was over a 1,000 pages long, and made many predictions.
Which of these predictions match up with what has been observed since the report was published?
So far we have one wrong prediction, and zero correct ones. perhaps you would like to tell us which of the IPCC predictions have come true, which makes you certain the IPCC report is correct (except of course for what it says about hurricanes, which are obviously wrong)?
>The > point of the models is to ascertain what effects we can expect from it > in the future, given a range of responses (from none to aggressive).
The point of the models is to predict what will happen to the earth's climate.
How well do they do that? What specific predictions of the IPCC report (of the thousands that were made) have turned out to be true?
Yarrow Axforda,1, Jason P. Brinerb, Colin A. Cookec, Donna R. Francisd, Neal Micheluttie, Gifford H. Millera,f, John P. Smole, Elizabeth K. Thomasb, Cheryl R. Wilsone and Alexander P. Wolfec
Abstract
The Arctic is currently undergoing dramatic environmental transformations, but it remains largely unknown how these changes compare with long-term natural variability. Here we present a lake sediment sequence from the Canadian Arctic that records warm periods of the past 200,000 years, including the 20th century. This record provides a perspective on recent changes in the Arctic and predates by approximately 80,000 years the oldest stratigraphically intact ice core recovered from the Greenland Ice Sheet. The early Holocene and the warmest part of the Last Interglacial (Marine Isotope Stage or MIS 5e) were the only periods of the past 200,000 years with summer temperatures comparable to or exceeding today's at this site. Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the past three interglacial periods were characterized by similar trajectories in temperature, lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of which tracked orbitally-driven solar insolation. In recent decades, however, the study site has deviated from this recurring natural pattern and has entered an environmental regime that is unique within the past 200 millennia.
"There are periods of time reflected in this sediment core that demonstrate that the climate was as warm as today," said Briner, "but that was due to natural causes, having to do with well-understood patterns of the Earth's orbit around the sun. The whole ecosystem has now shifted and the ecosystem we see during just the last few decades is different from those seen during any of the past warm intervals."
>>>> 1. That AGW is correct. >>>> 2. That AGW does *not* predict more intense hurricanes. >>>> 3. That hurricanes have *not* increased (indeed, we are at a 30 year >>>> low) >>>> 4. Therefore AGW is correct.
>>>> You seem to believe:
>>>> 1. That AGW is correct >>>> 2. That AGW predicts more intense hurricanes >>>> 3. There is evidence that hurricanes have increased in intensity >>>> 4. Therefore AGW is correct.
>>>> Is that the situation?
>>> What I "believe" is unimportant. The science indicates that the >>> current global warming correlates with the fossil fuel burning >>> that came with the industrial revolution.
>> "Correlates".
>> There is a (positive, FWIW) correlation between electricity consumption >> and car ownership (as both correlate positively with income), this >> doesn't prove that buying a car increases your electricity consumption, >> or even vica versa.
>>> The source of heating doesn't matter to hurricanes... the higher >>> global temperatures are likely to increase hurricane frequency and >>> intensity.
>> So you say the person who said AGW does NOT predict an increase in the >> intensity of cyclones is wrong?
>>> Yarrow Axforda,1, Jason P. Brinerb, Colin A. Cookec, Donna R. Francisd, >>> Neal Micheluttie, Gifford H. Millera,f, John P. Smole, Elizabeth K. >>> Thomasb, Cheryl R. Wilsone and Alexander P. Wolfec
>>> Abstract
>>> The Arctic is currently undergoing dramatic environmental >>> transformations, but it remains largely unknown how these changes >>> compare with long-term natural variability. Here we present a lake >>> sediment sequence from the Canadian Arctic that records warm periods of >>> the past 200,000 years, including the 20th century. This record provides >>> a perspective on recent changes in the Arctic and predates by >>> approximately 80,000 years the oldest stratigraphically intact ice core >>> recovered from the Greenland Ice Sheet. The early Holocene and the >>> warmest part of the Last Interglacial (Marine Isotope Stage or MIS 5e) >>> were the only periods of the past 200,000 years with summer temperatures >>> comparable to or exceeding today's at this site. Paleoecological and >>> geochemical data indicate that the past three interglacial periods were >>> characterized by similar trajectories in temperature, lake biology, and >>> lakewater pH, all of which tracked orbitally-driven solar insolation. In >>> recent decades, however, the study site has deviated from this recurring >>> natural pattern and has entered an environmental regime that is unique >>> within the past 200 millennia.
>>> "There are periods of time reflected in this sediment core that >>> demonstrate that the climate was as warm as today," said Briner, "but >>> that was due to natural causes, having to do with well-understood >>> patterns of the Earth's orbit around the sun. The whole ecosystem has >>> now shifted and the ecosystem we see during just the last few decades is >>> different from those seen during any of the past warm intervals."
>> So, couldn't find anything about hurricanes, so in typical crank style >> just decided to change the topic?
> We're not talk'n cars and electricity... we are talking about recent > changes in a remote Arctic lake are unique within the past 200,000 years > that indicate the changes are due to human activity in the form of CO2 > from fossil fuel burning.
No, *you* decided to talk about what was happening in a remote arctic lake. Nobody else was. We were all talking about hurricanes.
>> Ohh, so AGW predicts that the intensity of hurricanes will increase, and >> AGW also predicts that the intensity of hurricanes will NOT increase?
> No--The science indicates that the current global warming correlates > with > the fossil fuel burning that came with the industrial revolution.
> The source of heating doesn't matter to hurricanes... the higher > global temperatures are likely to increase hurricane frequency and > intensity.
So according to AGW, an increase in hurricane intensity is evidence that the earth is getting warmer? So a decrease (say a 30 year low, as we are experiencing at the moment) is therefore evidence the earth is cooler?
And what about the claim that AGW will cause an increase in freak weather events, and cause more extreme events? Aren't cyclones and hurricanes extreme events?
> Are their any specific predictions of global warming that you believe to > be true, and that we can use as a test of the theory?
Global Warming? That's happening--the data is clear the global surface temperature is increasing. Here's some resent research that indicates that fossil fuel burn has an effect on Arctic warming.
Yarrow Axforda,1, Jason P. Brinerb, Colin A. Cookec, Donna R. Francisd, Neal Micheluttie, Gifford H. Millera,f, John P. Smole, Elizabeth K. Thomasb, Cheryl R. Wilsone and Alexander P. Wolfec
Abstract
The Arctic is currently undergoing dramatic environmental transformations, but it remains largely unknown how these changes compare with long-term natural variability. Here we present a lake sediment sequence from the Canadian Arctic that records warm periods of the past 200,000 years, including the 20th century. This record provides a perspective on recent changes in the Arctic and predates by approximately 80,000 years the oldest stratigraphically intact ice core recovered from the Greenland Ice Sheet. The early Holocene and the warmest part of the Last Interglacial (Marine Isotope Stage or MIS 5e) were the only periods of the past 200,000 years with summer temperatures comparable to or exceeding today's at this site. Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the past three interglacial periods were characterized by similar trajectories in temperature, lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of which tracked orbitally-driven solar insolation. In recent decades, however, the study site has deviated from this recurring natural pattern and has entered an environmental regime that is unique within the past 200 millennia.
"There are periods of time reflected in this sediment core that demonstrate that the climate was as warm as today," said Briner, "but that was due to natural causes, having to do with well-understood patterns of the Earth's orbit around the sun. The whole ecosystem has now shifted and the ecosystem we see during just the last few decades is different from those seen during any of the past warm intervals."
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >I have hear astrologists make the same claim. Everybody who really >understands astrology believes it is correct.
Astrologers are not scientists. Like other religionists, making unsupported claims is what they are about. Scientists speak with the weight of evidence and theory behind them.
>You are offended because I call people who believe in AGW "AGW believers"?
I'm not offended, but the term is offensive as applied to scientific truth.
>Ohh, so AGW predicts that the intensity of hurricanes will increase, and AGW >also predicts that the intensity of hurricanes will NOT increase?
AGW predicts nothing. AGW is an observation. There are theories of climate behavior that explain AGW, and make a variety of predictions. No current climate theory makes any predictions about future hurricane activity in the North Atlantic with a high degree of confidence. People who call AGW a belief or theory are the same as those who call evolution a belief or theory. That would be people who don't even understand the basics of science.
>So IPCC and NOAA are quite possibly wrong?
Wrong about the effects of global warming on hurricane activity? Of course- the very papers they publish or reprint admit this. Wrong that AGW is a real thing? Highly unlikely.
>What else in the IPCC report is quite possibly wrong, or is it just the bit >about hurricanes?
Read the report. Confidence levels are given for all the predictions.
>> Nobody would ever use these predictions to determine if "AGW is >> correct". That's pretty much a given, based on actual observation.
>Well, not observation of hurricanes, obviously.
Because theory isn't yet advanced enough to reliably predict hurricane accuracy, a point that isn't hidden by the modelers. So any failure of the models in this area isn't seen as a serious problem with respect to other parts that are much more solid.
>The IPCC report was over a 1,000 pages long, and made many predictions.
>Which of these predictions match up with what has been observed since the >report was published?
The warming trend continues. It's pretty hard to match predictions that are largely reflecting 10-year and 30-year averages in the few years since the latest IPCC report was published.
>The point of the models is to predict what will happen to the earth's >climate.
>How well do they do that? What specific predictions of the IPCC report (of >the thousands that were made) have turned out to be true?
They are predicting climate over decades- a point that seems to be overlooked by people who don't understand the reports, don't understand statistics, and don't understand the underlying science. In fact, as the models improve the evidence continues to mount that the IPCC predictions were far too conservative. _________________________________________________
>> Are their any specific predictions of global warming that you believe to >> be true, and that we can use as a test of the theory?
> Global Warming? That's happening--the data is clear the global > surface temperature is increasing. Here's some resent research > that indicates that fossil fuel burn has an effect on Arctic warming.
Of course, it iscompletely off-topic, as we were discussing cyclones ...
But I note that the abstract says:
"Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the
> past three interglacial periods were characterized by similar trajectories > in temperature, lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of which tracked > orbitally-driven solar insolation. In recent decades, however, the study > site has deviated from this recurring natural pattern and has entered an > environmental regime that is unique within the past 200 millennia.
So, if this is evidence that AGW predictions are correct, there must be some previous prediction that this lake would have a warming cycle which followed a different "trajectories in temperature lake biology, and lakewater pH".
Where in the copious quantities of predictions made by AGW is this prediction made?
Or are you instead showing examples of things which weren't predicted by AGW theories but which actually did happen? If so, I was after predictions made by AGW that turned out to be correct, not things that *weren't* predicted by AGW that turned out correct. Or at least that is how I understand science is supposed to work ...
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >Ohh, so the fact that the IPCC report is wrong about cyclones is because it >is wrong about how much warming we would see?
First of all, the IPCC report is not wrong about cyclones. Perhaps you are referring to North Atlantic hurricanes? However, they aren't really wrong about that, either, since there hasn't been enough time since the report to tell. In spite of a number of factors that ought to have resulted in a cooling trend over the last decade, we've seen nothing more than a leveling of the long term rise in global temperature. Given that, it isn't surprising that we've not seen a major change is hurricane activity. Give the report time for decadal averages to make sense. Watch what happens when the temperatures really start shooting up again in the next few years- as they are almost certain to do. Then judge the IPCC predictions. _________________________________________________
|
