| From | Comment | To |
|
|
Posted:
Nov 23 2009 12:56 AM
Ha! I am just trying to catch up with everybody else on here. I have switched in the last few months, but there for awhile Brin and I were the only ones NOT switching.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Nov 22 2009 6:35 PM
You switch parties more than Arch does...
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Nov 21 2009 12:52 PM
Check out this email message from some of the top climate change experts in the world admitting they can't account for the the "global warming". This is just one message out of literally over a thousand in which they collude to lie to the public on scientific results. These are the people that are influencing public policy and Government spending on global warming. Good stuff. lol
+++++++++++++++++++
From: Michael Mann <mann@meteo.psu.edu>-----------
To: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@ucar.edu>---------------
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate----------------
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:53:52 -0400-------------
Cc: Tom Wigley <wigley@ucar.edu>, Stephen H Schneider<shs@stanford.edu>, Myles Allen <allen@atm.ox.ac.uk>, peter stott <peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk>, "Philip D. Jones" <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>, Benjamin Santer <santer1@llnl.gov>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov>, James Hansen <jhansen@giss.nasa.gov>,
Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@Princeton.EDU>--------------------------
thanks Kevin, yes, it's a matter of what question one is asking. to argue that the observed global mean temperature anomalies of the past decade falsifies the model projections of global mean temperature change, as contrarians have been fond of claiming,is clearly wrong. but that doesn't mean we can explain exactly what's going on. there is always the danger of falling a bit into the "we don't know everything, so we know nothing"fallacy. hence, I wanted to try to clarify where we all agree, and where there may be disagreement,
mike
On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Mike
Here are some of the issues as I see them: Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation. What are the physical processes? Where did the heat go? We know there is a build up of ocean heat prior to El Nino, and a discharge (and sfc T warming) during late stages of El Nino, but is the observing system sufficient to track it? Quite aside from the changes in the ocean, we know there are major changes in the storm tracks and teleconnections with ENSO, and there is a LOT more rain on land during La Nina (more drought in El Nino), so how does the albedo change overall(changes in cloud)? At the very least the extra rain on land means a lot more heat goes into evaporation rather than raising temperatures, and so that keeps land temps down: and should generate cloud. But the resulting evaporative cooling means the heat goes into atmosphere and should be radiated to space: so we should be able to track it with CERES data. The CERES data are unfortunately wonting and so too are the cloud data. The ocean data are also lacking although some of that may be related to the ocean current changes and burying heat at depth where it is not picked up. If it is sequestered at depth then it comes back to haunt us later and so we should know about it.
Kevin
Michael Mann wrote:
Kevin, that's an interesting point. As the plot from Gavin I sent shows, we can easily account for the observed surface cooling in terms of the natural variability seen in the CMIP3 ensemble (i.e. the observed cold dip falls well within it). So in that sense, we can "explain" it. But this raises the interesting question, is there something going
on here w/ the energy & radiation budget which is inconsistent with the modes of internal variability that leads to similar temporary cooling periods within the models. I'm not sure that this has been addressed--has it?
m
On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Kevin
Tom Wigley wrote:
Dear all,
At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data. Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second method leaves a significant warming over the past decade. These sums complement Kevin's energy work. Kevin says ... "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't". I do not agree with this.
Tom.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather(see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy. /Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27 doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]<[1]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.pdf> (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007. see[2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.ppt
Kevin
Michael Mann wrote:
extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office. We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?
mike
On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote:
Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and
sampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino year and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth a few tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be another dramatic upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was willing to bet alot of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10 years of global mean temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000 year record and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big retreat?? Some of you observational folks probably do need to straighten this out as my student suggests below. Such "fun",
Cheers, Steve
Stephen H. Schneider
Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies,
Professor, Department of Biology and Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment
Mailing address:Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205
473 Via Ortega Ph: 650 725 9978 F: 650 725 4387
Websites: climatechange.net patientfromhell.org
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Narasimha D. Rao"<[3]ndrao@stanford.edu<[4]mailto:ndrao@stanford.edu>>
To: "Stephen H Schneider" <[5]shs@stanford.edu <[6]mailto:shs@stanford.edu>>
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific ======
Subject: BBC U-turn on climate
Steve,
You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBCs reporter on climate change, on Friday wrote that theres been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will force cooling for the next 20-30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are other skeptics views. [7]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm[8]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on -climate-change/ BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US.
Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist?
Narasimha
PhD Candidate,
Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources (E-IPER)
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Nov 15 2009 7:21 PM
CR was the tie-breaker Smashey. That is why I pulled it off. lol
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Nov 15 2009 7:17 PM
I am going to stage a protest if I don't get to keep that win. lol
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Nov 15 2009 7:16 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Nov 15 2009 7:16 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Nov 15 2009 5:51 PM
Boo Boo has my vote on Monday.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Nov 15 2009 5:44 PM
We already found out Erock. I won.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Nov 14 2009 5:38 PM
This just in ..... Global Warming linked to Terrorism.
The rise in global temperatures are causing terrorism anonymous sources indicate. Al Quaeda may have produced a world heating weapon and we must combat global warming before we all die.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Nov 14 2009 2:33 PM
lol
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Nov 14 2009 2:32 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Nov 14 2009 2:20 PM
i think we might have split the win.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Nov 14 2009 2:20 PM
Yes we are.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted:
Nov 14 2009 2:18 PM
Actually, she voted before her Sausagefest blog.
|
|
|
|