Pete H’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  "difficult to ascertain"

  I posted the link so people can read it for themselves. I recommend that people always read and decide for themselves.  I should have posted the whole thing.

  The last paragraph states that "the AMO is probably a natural climate oscillation." It further states "...the climate swings of the AMO have alternately camouflaged and exaggerated the effects of global warming, and made attribution of global warming more difficult to ascertain."

  So I ask you, how in the heck do you show a link between hurricanes and global warming if the AMO is the only accurate predictor of hurricane frequency and intensity and its effects are such that they camouflage or exaggerate the effects of global warming?

  It is irresponsible to state "hurricanes are getting stronger - thanks to global warming." That theory simply isn't supportable at this time given what we know about the effect of the AMO on hurricanes and how little we really know about long term climate change.

  I guess "difficult to ascertain" means "proof of a link" to some folks.

  Here is that last paragraph:

  Instruments have observed AMO cycles only for the last 150 years, not long enough to conclusively answer this question. However, studies of paleoclimate proxies, such as tree rings and ice cores, have shown that oscillations similar to those observed instrumentally have been occurring for at least the last millennium. This is clearly longer than modern man has been affecting climate, so the AMO is probably a natural climate oscillation. In the 20th century, the climate swings of the AMO have alternately camouflaged and exaggerated the effects of global warming, and made attribution of global warming more difficult to ascertain.
  

  We do not talk -- we bludgeon one another with facts and theories gleaned from cursory readings of newspapers, magazines and digests. Henry Miller

  On Climate change is increasing the frequency of Category 5 storms posted 2 years, 2 months ago 7 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Global Warming or the AMO?

  Maybe someday we will be able to link the sea surface temperatures to climate change, but for now the best science we have to explain ssts is the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.

  Here is a link and a few select facts from an authoritative source.

  http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/amo_faq.php

  What is the AMO?

  The AMO is an ongoing series of long-duration changes in the sea surface temperature of the North Atlantic Ocean, with cool and warm phases that may last for 20-40 years at a time and a difference of about 1°F between extremes. These changes are natural and have been occurring for at least the last 1,000 years.

  How much of the Atlantic are we talking about?

  Most of the Atlantic between the equator and Greenland changes in unison. Some area of the North Pacific also seem to be affected.

  What phase are we in right now?

  Since the mid-1990s we have been in a warm phase.

  What are the impacts of the AMO?

  The AMO has affected air temperatures and rainfall over much of the Northern Hemisphere, in particular, North America and Europe. It is associated with changes in the frequency of North American droughts and is reflected in the frequency of severe Atlantic hurricanes. It alternately obscures and exaggerates the global increase in temperatures due to human-induced global warming.

  How does the AMO affect rainfall and droughts?

  Recent research suggests that the AMO is related to the past occurrence of major droughts in the Midwest and the Southwest. When the AMO is in its warm phase, these droughts tend to be more frequent and/or severe (prolonged?). Vice-versa for negative AMO. Two of the most severe droughts of the 20th century occurred during the positive AMO between 1925 and 1965: The Dustbowl of the 1930s and the 1950s drought. Florida and the Pacific Northwest tend to be the opposite - warm AMO, more rainfall.

  How important is the AMO when it comes to hurricanes - in other words - is it one of the biggest drivers? Or Just a minor player?

  During warm phases of the AMO, the numbers of tropical storms that mature into severe hurricanes is much greater than during cool phases, at least twice as many. Since the AMO switched to its warm phase around 1995, severe hurricanes have become much more frequent and this has led to a crisis in the insurance industry.

  Does the AMO influence the intensity or the frequency of hurricanes (which)?

  The frequency of weak-category storms - tropical storms and weak hurricanes - is not much affected by the AMO. However, the number of weak storms that mature into major hurricanes is noticeably increased. Thus, the intensity is affected, but, clearly, the frequency of major hurricanes is also affected. In that sense, it is difficult to discriminate between frequency and intensity and the distinction becomes somewhat meaningless.

  If the AMO (in part) affects hurricanes - what drives the AMO?

  Models of the ocean and atmosphere that interact with each other indicate that the AMO cycle involves changes in the south-to-north circulation and overturning of water and heat in the Atlantic Ocean. This is the same circulation that we think weakens during ice ages, but in the case of the AMO the changes in circulation are much more subtle than those of the ice ages. The warm Gulf Stream current off the east coast of the United States is part of the Atlantic overturning circulation. When the overturning circulation decreases, the North Atlantic temperatures become cooler.On Climate change is increasing the frequency of Category 5 storms posted 2 years, 2 months ago 7 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Some of us post on this blog

  You don't need to look to "conservative blogs" you can look at your own blog (liberal? environmentalist? progressive? smug?) to see that some of us conservatives are skeptical AND informed.

  The "evolution vs. creationism" argument is tired and frankly doesn't get the job done.

  "Faith" in the GCMs and thoughtless acceptance of one scenario (20 foot sea rise! really?) is hardly science, a consensus or anything remotely like it.

  Here is a link, but beware - I don't bash Gore enough for you to dismiss me out of hand...

  http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/224450/84#19On Wherein we puzzle through the truthiness posted 2 years, 8 months ago 4 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Coal Fired Power Plants and SUVs?

  So let me see if I have this straight,

  If coal fired power plants and SUVs pump out CO2, what do gas fired power plants and biodiesel VWs pump out?

  Cotton candy and hugs?

  I won't defend Coulter - she is an idiot. Her only goal is to "cause controversy" so she can sell more books.

  We should all agree that clearly Al Gore is a hypocrite of the highest order.  His profligate lifestyle and the fiction of "carbon offsets" are just too silly to defend.
  On My aborted adventure on Fox posted 2 years, 8 months ago 11 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Still flogging that dead horse...

  While I may be unable to convince Coby that my "feigned inability to understand" is actually a genuine concern that the proxy data is being oversold, maybe some of you will enjoy this post. (For the rest of you I apologize, whilst I flog this dead horse just ONE MORE TIME).

  Here is a quick link for your reading pleasure, along with the "discussion" regarding the time lag. Please note that the source is realclimate.org, which is the ultimate source of the info on the other links that have been posted.

  This link discusses the 800 year lag and answers that pesky question: "which came first?" (Oops, we can't say that) how about: "what is significant?"

  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

  Begin quote:

  Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

  The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

  The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

  End quote

  Yes, you read that correctly.  Better yet, link to it and read it for yourself in context.

  So "All that the lag shows is that CO2 DID NOT CAUSE THE FIRST 800 YEARS OF WARMING, out of the 5000 year trend."

  That's all?  What about the next 4,200 years?

  Well, "The other 4200 years of warming COULD in fact have been caused by CO2, AS FAR AS WE CAN TELL from this ice core data."

  So while it is clearly FACT that the first 800 years COULD NOT have been caused by increases in CO2, it is clearly A POSSIBILITY that the next 4,200 years MIGHT have been.  

  (Of course if the increased temperatures are causing the increase in CO2, then you might ask what caused the first 800 years of warming and why COULDN'T that POSSIBLY have continued to cause significant warming during the next 4,200 years?)

  Again, I am not a heretic in this new "global warming" religion being created by the true believers. (Dr. Hanson and Al Gore be praised!) Clearly the physics and even possibly some of the recent observations tell us that the greenhouse gases play a part and can be a significant forcing.  The problem is rather than have an honest discussion which includes all of the COULDS, MIGHT HAVES, AS FAR AS WE CAN TELLS, we are told the proxy data clearly PROVES that IS WHAT HAPPENED in the past.

  Those very tortured sentences could have been written something like this:

  "What the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming. It is certainly possible that the other 4200 years of warming could have been significantly affected by the increasing CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data and our current theories on global climate change."

  "So while it is clear that CO2 could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming, it could have played a significant part during the last 5/6 of the warming."

  Of course that second sentence is completely unnecessary, but the authors of the original link felt the need to include it, POSSIBLY to lend some weight to their theory.  Clearly fractions are powerful joss when demonstrating how 5/6 of the time something COULD POSSIBLY HAVE HAPPENED, AS FAR AS WE CAN TELL FROM THE ICE CORE DATA. (Somehow 83.3% just didn't have the POP of 5/6).

  It's always a pleasure boys.On There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence posted 2 years, 10 months ago 78 Responses