Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands
- Thread starter Foxsea
- Start date
- Status
Find the specific outlandish claims that Gavin Atkins is referring to. That's what is relevant to this sub-discussion. E.g. is what you posted true?
Al Gore is a politician - 'nuff said. HOWEVER, what Al Gore thinks and says about climate (much of which is over dramatized) is not relevant. What is relevant is what the vast majority of climate scientists have to say and those thoughts, predictions and understandings are summarized in a number of excellent reports including those on the AAAS web site and the IPCC's website.
http://thetyee.ca/National/2014/11/...ce=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=151114
Alberta Landowner Appeals Constitutional Issue in Fracking Case
Jessica Ernst aims to challenge regulator immunity in Canada's highest court.
By Andrew Nikiforuk, Today, TheTyee.ca
Share article via email Print this article
Jessica_Ernst
Jessica Ernst on her land in Alberta. Photo: Colin Smith.
Related
Judge Rules Landowner May Sue Gov't in Landmark Fracking Case
Decision 'reaffirms the power of the people,' says plaintiff Jessica Ernst.
Alberta Moves to Strike Down Ernst's Fracking Lawsuit
Landmark case could spark a flood of litigation against the province, lawyer argues.
Tell Us What's Being Done to Our Groundwater, Demand Albertans
Push for transparency after province closed once-public records on aquifer quality.
Read more: Energy, Environment
Can provincial legislation protect the state and "block an individual from seeking a remedy for breach" of her fundamental rights and freedoms under the nation's Charter of Rights?
That's the question that lawyers representing Alberta oil patch consultant Jessica Ernst have now posed to the Supreme Court of Canada in a special legal filing known as application for leave.
Murray Klippenstein and Cory Wanless, Ernst's Toronto-based legal team, are hoping that the court will agree to hear their arguments that the Alberta Court of Appeal erred this year when it ruled against their client.
The Court of Appeal found that the province's energy regulator can violate a citizen's fundamental freedoms because a provincial immunity clause protects it from civil actions from citizens.
But Ernst's landmark lawsuit, which challenges the regulation of hydraulic fracturing, is multi-sided.
It alleges that Encana, a pioneer of hydraulic fracturing, drilled and fractured shallow coal bed methane wells directly in the local groundwater supply between 2001 and 2004 near Rosebud, Alberta, polluting Ernst's water well with enough toxic chemicals and methane to make it flammable.
The lawsuit also alleges that two provincial regulators, the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) and Alberta Environment, failed to act on documented and repeated violations of the law.
The ERCB, now the Alberta Energy Regulator, is the province's powerful energy regulator. It is to Albertans what the Texas Railroad Commission is to Texans: the primary regulator for the oil and gas industry.
In addition, Ernst's lawsuit alleges that the ERCB ceased all communication with the oil patch consultant and falsely accused her of making "criminal threats," thereby violating her fundamental Charter rights to free expression.
This week, Ernst won a legal victory when Chief Justice Neil Wittmann struck down the last of three attempts by the Alberta government to quash the case by ruling that Alberta Environment can be sued when it acts in bad faith.
An editorial in the Edmonton Journal hailed the decision, calling it a ''victory for the little guy.''
Previous ruling found regulator immune
But last year, Justice Wittmann delivered a somewhat different ruling for the ERCB, which oversees oil and gas development and is governed by different statutes than Alberta Environment.
Wittmann found that provincial rules granted the ERCB immunity from lawsuits as well as Charter claims, and struck the regulator from Ernst's lawsuit -- though he acknowledged ''the Charter claim of Ernst against the ERCB is valid.''
Ernst appealed that decision, because she considers the ERCB to be ''the most guilty party'' in her seven-year-long fight for justice over the contamination of local groundwater.
(Nearly a decade ago, the shallow fracking of coal seams in central Alberta resulted in water well complaints from nearly 100 landowners.)
Earlier this year, the Court of Appeal of Alberta agreed with Wittmann and ruled that the immunity clause in the ERCB's legislation broadly protected the agency from lawsuits that allege violations of the civil rights of landowners.
Now, Ernst's lawyers have taken her Charter claim to the highest court.
A memorandum to the court argues that the ERCB breached Ernst's right to freedom of expression by ''punishing Ms. Ernst for publicly criticizing the ERCB and by arbitrarily preventing Ms. Ernst from speaking to key offices within the ERCB.''
The public record shows that the board cut off communication with the landowner in December 2005 and returned her mail at the same time she discovered methane in her water well.
''Richard McKee, a senior lawyer with the ERCB, confirmed that the ERCB had decided to stop communication with Ms. Ernst and would not re-open communication until Ms. Ernst agreed to stop voicing her concerns publicly and agreed to raise her concerns only to the ERCB,'' says the memorandum.
Ernst refused to make any deal, and continues to be a vocal critic of the regulator now chaired by Gerard Protti, a former energy lobbyist and Encana executive.
The memorandum argues that ''the Charter guarantees not only fundamental freedoms, but also guarantees the right of Canadians to seek a remedy when these fundamental Charter rights and freedoms are violated.''
Other issues case will test
In addition to addressing the question of whether or not provincial legislation can override a violation of the Charter, the case will raise other issues of national concern.
For starters, should legislatures or courts determine when the state has overstepped its powers and abused the rights of citizens?
In other words, can the court ignore the violation of fundamental freedoms of citizens such as Ernst by the government just because its agency may have an immunity clause from civil action?
Secondly, the Court of Appeal of Alberta has now upheld law in the Ernst case that puts the province at odds with laws in Ontario, where constitutional issues come first.
In Ontario, a regulator could not violate the Charter rights of a citizen like Ernst and get away with it, Ernst's lawyers argue. They will ask whether the rights of Ontarians to seek Charter protections should be more robust than those of Albertans.
Lastly, immunity clauses are found in dozens of statutes across the country. ''The Supreme Court's guidance on whether legislation can limit the remedies available'' under the Charter will benefit all Canadians, argue Ernst's lawyers.
The Supreme Court only hears about one in 20 cases brought before it.
To date, Ernst has covered her legal costs herself, along with a few small donations from individual landowners, seniors, urbanites and community groups. She said she will not settle and wants all of the data on the fracking of coal seams made public.
Ernst expects to sell everything she has to get to the end of the lawsuit. ''Groundwater is more important than money,'' she said.
An analysis of the most recent legal ruling on the lawsuit by a University of Calgary law professor said that the Ernst case on groundwater contamination is shaping up to be ''the legal saga of the decade.'' [Tyee]
Read more: Energy, Environment
Andrew Nikiforuk is an award-winning journalist who has been writing about the energy industry for two decades and is a contributing editor to The Tyee. Find his previous stories here.
This coverage of Canadian national issues is made possible because of generous financial support from our Tyee Builders.
Alberta Landowner Appeals Constitutional Issue in Fracking Case
Jessica Ernst aims to challenge regulator immunity in Canada's highest court.
By Andrew Nikiforuk, Today, TheTyee.ca
Share article via email Print this article
Jessica_Ernst
Jessica Ernst on her land in Alberta. Photo: Colin Smith.
Related
Judge Rules Landowner May Sue Gov't in Landmark Fracking Case
Decision 'reaffirms the power of the people,' says plaintiff Jessica Ernst.
Alberta Moves to Strike Down Ernst's Fracking Lawsuit
Landmark case could spark a flood of litigation against the province, lawyer argues.
Tell Us What's Being Done to Our Groundwater, Demand Albertans
Push for transparency after province closed once-public records on aquifer quality.
Read more: Energy, Environment
Can provincial legislation protect the state and "block an individual from seeking a remedy for breach" of her fundamental rights and freedoms under the nation's Charter of Rights?
That's the question that lawyers representing Alberta oil patch consultant Jessica Ernst have now posed to the Supreme Court of Canada in a special legal filing known as application for leave.
Murray Klippenstein and Cory Wanless, Ernst's Toronto-based legal team, are hoping that the court will agree to hear their arguments that the Alberta Court of Appeal erred this year when it ruled against their client.
The Court of Appeal found that the province's energy regulator can violate a citizen's fundamental freedoms because a provincial immunity clause protects it from civil actions from citizens.
But Ernst's landmark lawsuit, which challenges the regulation of hydraulic fracturing, is multi-sided.
It alleges that Encana, a pioneer of hydraulic fracturing, drilled and fractured shallow coal bed methane wells directly in the local groundwater supply between 2001 and 2004 near Rosebud, Alberta, polluting Ernst's water well with enough toxic chemicals and methane to make it flammable.
The lawsuit also alleges that two provincial regulators, the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) and Alberta Environment, failed to act on documented and repeated violations of the law.
The ERCB, now the Alberta Energy Regulator, is the province's powerful energy regulator. It is to Albertans what the Texas Railroad Commission is to Texans: the primary regulator for the oil and gas industry.
In addition, Ernst's lawsuit alleges that the ERCB ceased all communication with the oil patch consultant and falsely accused her of making "criminal threats," thereby violating her fundamental Charter rights to free expression.
This week, Ernst won a legal victory when Chief Justice Neil Wittmann struck down the last of three attempts by the Alberta government to quash the case by ruling that Alberta Environment can be sued when it acts in bad faith.
An editorial in the Edmonton Journal hailed the decision, calling it a ''victory for the little guy.''
Previous ruling found regulator immune
But last year, Justice Wittmann delivered a somewhat different ruling for the ERCB, which oversees oil and gas development and is governed by different statutes than Alberta Environment.
Wittmann found that provincial rules granted the ERCB immunity from lawsuits as well as Charter claims, and struck the regulator from Ernst's lawsuit -- though he acknowledged ''the Charter claim of Ernst against the ERCB is valid.''
Ernst appealed that decision, because she considers the ERCB to be ''the most guilty party'' in her seven-year-long fight for justice over the contamination of local groundwater.
(Nearly a decade ago, the shallow fracking of coal seams in central Alberta resulted in water well complaints from nearly 100 landowners.)
Earlier this year, the Court of Appeal of Alberta agreed with Wittmann and ruled that the immunity clause in the ERCB's legislation broadly protected the agency from lawsuits that allege violations of the civil rights of landowners.
Now, Ernst's lawyers have taken her Charter claim to the highest court.
A memorandum to the court argues that the ERCB breached Ernst's right to freedom of expression by ''punishing Ms. Ernst for publicly criticizing the ERCB and by arbitrarily preventing Ms. Ernst from speaking to key offices within the ERCB.''
The public record shows that the board cut off communication with the landowner in December 2005 and returned her mail at the same time she discovered methane in her water well.
''Richard McKee, a senior lawyer with the ERCB, confirmed that the ERCB had decided to stop communication with Ms. Ernst and would not re-open communication until Ms. Ernst agreed to stop voicing her concerns publicly and agreed to raise her concerns only to the ERCB,'' says the memorandum.
Ernst refused to make any deal, and continues to be a vocal critic of the regulator now chaired by Gerard Protti, a former energy lobbyist and Encana executive.
The memorandum argues that ''the Charter guarantees not only fundamental freedoms, but also guarantees the right of Canadians to seek a remedy when these fundamental Charter rights and freedoms are violated.''
Other issues case will test
In addition to addressing the question of whether or not provincial legislation can override a violation of the Charter, the case will raise other issues of national concern.
For starters, should legislatures or courts determine when the state has overstepped its powers and abused the rights of citizens?
In other words, can the court ignore the violation of fundamental freedoms of citizens such as Ernst by the government just because its agency may have an immunity clause from civil action?
Secondly, the Court of Appeal of Alberta has now upheld law in the Ernst case that puts the province at odds with laws in Ontario, where constitutional issues come first.
In Ontario, a regulator could not violate the Charter rights of a citizen like Ernst and get away with it, Ernst's lawyers argue. They will ask whether the rights of Ontarians to seek Charter protections should be more robust than those of Albertans.
Lastly, immunity clauses are found in dozens of statutes across the country. ''The Supreme Court's guidance on whether legislation can limit the remedies available'' under the Charter will benefit all Canadians, argue Ernst's lawyers.
The Supreme Court only hears about one in 20 cases brought before it.
To date, Ernst has covered her legal costs herself, along with a few small donations from individual landowners, seniors, urbanites and community groups. She said she will not settle and wants all of the data on the fracking of coal seams made public.
Ernst expects to sell everything she has to get to the end of the lawsuit. ''Groundwater is more important than money,'' she said.
An analysis of the most recent legal ruling on the lawsuit by a University of Calgary law professor said that the Ernst case on groundwater contamination is shaping up to be ''the legal saga of the decade.'' [Tyee]
Read more: Energy, Environment
Andrew Nikiforuk is an award-winning journalist who has been writing about the energy industry for two decades and is a contributing editor to The Tyee. Find his previous stories here.
This coverage of Canadian national issues is made possible because of generous financial support from our Tyee Builders.
Lightning expected to increase by 50 percent with global warming
Date:
November 13, 2014
Source:
University of California - Berkeley
Summary:
Atmospheric scientists looked at predictions of precipitation and cloud buoyancy in 11 different climate models and concluded that their combined effect will generate 50 percent more electrical discharges to the ground by the end of the century because of global warming. The main cause is water vapor, which fuels explosive deep convection in the atmosphere. The more convection, the greater the charge separation and the more cloud-to-ground strikes.
Share This
Email to a friend
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Google+
Print this page
Today's climate models predict a 50 percent increase in lightning strikes across the United States during this century as a result of warming temperatures associated with climate change.
Credit: © Sondem / Fotolia
[Click to enlarge image]
Today's climate models predict a 50 percent increase in lightning strikes across the United States during this century as a result of warming temperatures associated with climate change.
Related Articles
Tornado
Cloud
Fog
Effects of global warming
Snow
Global climate model
Reporting in the Nov. 14 issue of the journal Science, University of California, Berkeley, climate scientist David Romps and his colleagues look at predictions of precipitation and cloud buoyancy in 11 different climate models and conclude that their combined effect will generate more frequent electrical discharges to the ground.
"With warming, thunderstorms become more explosive," said Romps, an assistant professor of earth and planetary science and a faculty scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. "This has to do with water vapor, which is the fuel for explosive deep convection in the atmosphere. Warming causes there to be more water vapor in the atmosphere, and if you have more fuel lying around, when you get ignition, it can go big time."
More lightning strikes mean more human injuries; estimates of people struck each year range from the hundreds to nearly a thousand, with scores of deaths. But another significant impact of increased lightning strikes would be more wildfires, since half of all fires -- and often the hardest to fight -- are ignited by lightning, Romps said. More lightning also would likely generate more nitrogen oxides in the atmosphere, which exert a strong control on atmospheric chemistry.
While some studies have shown changes in lightning associated with seasonal or year-to-year variations in temperature, there have been no reliable analyses to indicate what the future may hold. Romps and graduate student Jacob Seeley hypothesized that two atmospheric properties -- precipitation and cloud buoyancy -- together might be a predictor of lightning, and looked at observations during 2011 to see if there was a correlation.
"Lightning is caused by charge separation within clouds, and to maximize charge separation, you have to loft more water vapor and heavy ice particles into the atmosphere," he said. "We already know that the faster the updrafts, the more lightning, and the more precipitation, the more lightning."
Precipitation -- the total amount of water hitting the ground in the form of rain, snow, hail or other forms -- is basically a measure of how convective the atmosphere is, he said, and convection generates lightning. The ascent speeds of those convective clouds are determined by a factor called CAPE -- convective available potential energy -- which is measured by balloon-borne instruments, called radiosondes, released around the U.S. twice a day.
"CAPE is a measure of how potentially explosive the atmosphere is, that is, how buoyant a parcel of air would be if you got it convecting, if you got it to punch through overlying air into the free troposphere," Romps said. "We hypothesized that the product of precipitation and CAPE would predict lightning."
Using U.S. Weather Service data on precipitation, radiosonde measurements of CAPE and lightning- strike counts from the National Lightning Detection Network at the University of Albany, State University of New York (UAlbany), they concluded that 77 percent of the variations in lightning strikes could be predicted from knowing just these two parameters.
'Blown away'
"We were blown away by how incredibly well that worked to predict lightning strikes," he said.
They then looked at 11 different climate models that predict precipitation and CAPE through this century and are archived in the most recent Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). CMIP was established as a resource for climate modelers, providing a standard protocol for studying the output of coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation models so that these models can be compared and validated.
"With CMIP5, we now have for the first time the CAPE and precipitation data to calculate these time series," Romps said.
On average, the models predicted an 11 percent increase in CAPE in the U.S. per degree Celsius rise in global average temperature by the end of the 21st century. Because the models predict little average precipitation increase nationwide over this period, the product of CAPE and precipitation gives about a 12 percent rise in cloud-to-ground lightning strikes per degree in the contiguous U.S., or a roughly 50 percent increase by 2100 if Earth sees the expected 4-degree Celsius increase (7 degrees Fahrenheit) in temperature. This assumes carbon dioxide emissions keep rising consistent with business as usual.
Exactly why CAPE increases as the climate warms is still an area of active research, Romps said, though it is clear that it has to do with the fundamental physics of water. Warm air typically contains more water vapor than cold air; in fact, the amount of water vapor that air can "hold" increases exponentially with temperature. Since water vapor is the fuel for thunderstorms, lightning rates can depend very sensitively on temperature.
In the future, Romps plans to look at the distribution of lightning-strike increases around the U.S. and also explore what lightning data can tell climatologists about atmospheric convection.
Romps' co-authors are Jacob Seeley, also of the Department of Earth and Planetary Science at UC Berkeley, and David Vollaro and John Molinari of the Department of Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences at UAlbany.
The work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research and Office of Biological and Environmental Research, and the National Science Foundation.
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN6iElgldpI
Story Source:
The above story is based on materials provided by University of California - Berkeley. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.
Journal Reference:
D. M. Romps, J. T. Seeley, D. Vollaro, J. Molinari. Projected increase in lightning strikes in the United States due to global warming. Science, 2014; 346 (6211): 851 DOI: 10.1126/science.1259100
Date:
November 13, 2014
Source:
University of California - Berkeley
Summary:
Atmospheric scientists looked at predictions of precipitation and cloud buoyancy in 11 different climate models and concluded that their combined effect will generate 50 percent more electrical discharges to the ground by the end of the century because of global warming. The main cause is water vapor, which fuels explosive deep convection in the atmosphere. The more convection, the greater the charge separation and the more cloud-to-ground strikes.
Share This
Email to a friend
Google+
Print this page
Today's climate models predict a 50 percent increase in lightning strikes across the United States during this century as a result of warming temperatures associated with climate change.
Credit: © Sondem / Fotolia
[Click to enlarge image]
Today's climate models predict a 50 percent increase in lightning strikes across the United States during this century as a result of warming temperatures associated with climate change.
Related Articles
Tornado
Cloud
Fog
Effects of global warming
Snow
Global climate model
Reporting in the Nov. 14 issue of the journal Science, University of California, Berkeley, climate scientist David Romps and his colleagues look at predictions of precipitation and cloud buoyancy in 11 different climate models and conclude that their combined effect will generate more frequent electrical discharges to the ground.
"With warming, thunderstorms become more explosive," said Romps, an assistant professor of earth and planetary science and a faculty scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. "This has to do with water vapor, which is the fuel for explosive deep convection in the atmosphere. Warming causes there to be more water vapor in the atmosphere, and if you have more fuel lying around, when you get ignition, it can go big time."
More lightning strikes mean more human injuries; estimates of people struck each year range from the hundreds to nearly a thousand, with scores of deaths. But another significant impact of increased lightning strikes would be more wildfires, since half of all fires -- and often the hardest to fight -- are ignited by lightning, Romps said. More lightning also would likely generate more nitrogen oxides in the atmosphere, which exert a strong control on atmospheric chemistry.
While some studies have shown changes in lightning associated with seasonal or year-to-year variations in temperature, there have been no reliable analyses to indicate what the future may hold. Romps and graduate student Jacob Seeley hypothesized that two atmospheric properties -- precipitation and cloud buoyancy -- together might be a predictor of lightning, and looked at observations during 2011 to see if there was a correlation.
"Lightning is caused by charge separation within clouds, and to maximize charge separation, you have to loft more water vapor and heavy ice particles into the atmosphere," he said. "We already know that the faster the updrafts, the more lightning, and the more precipitation, the more lightning."
Precipitation -- the total amount of water hitting the ground in the form of rain, snow, hail or other forms -- is basically a measure of how convective the atmosphere is, he said, and convection generates lightning. The ascent speeds of those convective clouds are determined by a factor called CAPE -- convective available potential energy -- which is measured by balloon-borne instruments, called radiosondes, released around the U.S. twice a day.
"CAPE is a measure of how potentially explosive the atmosphere is, that is, how buoyant a parcel of air would be if you got it convecting, if you got it to punch through overlying air into the free troposphere," Romps said. "We hypothesized that the product of precipitation and CAPE would predict lightning."
Using U.S. Weather Service data on precipitation, radiosonde measurements of CAPE and lightning- strike counts from the National Lightning Detection Network at the University of Albany, State University of New York (UAlbany), they concluded that 77 percent of the variations in lightning strikes could be predicted from knowing just these two parameters.
'Blown away'
"We were blown away by how incredibly well that worked to predict lightning strikes," he said.
They then looked at 11 different climate models that predict precipitation and CAPE through this century and are archived in the most recent Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). CMIP was established as a resource for climate modelers, providing a standard protocol for studying the output of coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation models so that these models can be compared and validated.
"With CMIP5, we now have for the first time the CAPE and precipitation data to calculate these time series," Romps said.
On average, the models predicted an 11 percent increase in CAPE in the U.S. per degree Celsius rise in global average temperature by the end of the 21st century. Because the models predict little average precipitation increase nationwide over this period, the product of CAPE and precipitation gives about a 12 percent rise in cloud-to-ground lightning strikes per degree in the contiguous U.S., or a roughly 50 percent increase by 2100 if Earth sees the expected 4-degree Celsius increase (7 degrees Fahrenheit) in temperature. This assumes carbon dioxide emissions keep rising consistent with business as usual.
Exactly why CAPE increases as the climate warms is still an area of active research, Romps said, though it is clear that it has to do with the fundamental physics of water. Warm air typically contains more water vapor than cold air; in fact, the amount of water vapor that air can "hold" increases exponentially with temperature. Since water vapor is the fuel for thunderstorms, lightning rates can depend very sensitively on temperature.
In the future, Romps plans to look at the distribution of lightning-strike increases around the U.S. and also explore what lightning data can tell climatologists about atmospheric convection.
Romps' co-authors are Jacob Seeley, also of the Department of Earth and Planetary Science at UC Berkeley, and David Vollaro and John Molinari of the Department of Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences at UAlbany.
The work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research and Office of Biological and Environmental Research, and the National Science Foundation.
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN6iElgldpI
Story Source:
The above story is based on materials provided by University of California - Berkeley. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.
Journal Reference:
D. M. Romps, J. T. Seeley, D. Vollaro, J. Molinari. Projected increase in lightning strikes in the United States due to global warming. Science, 2014; 346 (6211): 851 DOI: 10.1126/science.1259100
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141114090009.htm
Warmest oceans ever recorded
Date:
November 14, 2014
Source:
University of Hawaii ‑ SOEST
Summary:
This summer has seen the highest global mean sea surface temperatures ever recorded. Temperatures even exceed those of the record-breaking 1998 El Nino year.
Share This
Email to a friend
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Google+
Print this page
Figure 1: a) NOAA Sea Surface Temperature anomaly (with respect to period 1854-2013) averaged over global oceans (red) and over North Pacific (0-60oN, 110oE-100oW) (cyan). September 2014 temperatures broke the record for both global and North Pacific Sea Surface Temperatures. b) Sea Surface Temperature anomaly of September 2014 from NOAA's ERSST dataset.
Credit: Axel Timmermann
[Click to enlarge image]
"This summer has seen the highest global mean sea surface temperatures ever recorded since their systematic measuring started. Temperatures even exceed those of the record-breaking 1998 El Niño year," says Axel Timmermann, climate scientist and professor, studying variability of the global climate system at the International Pacific Research Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Related Articles
Krakatoa
Breaking wave
Temperature record of the past 1000 years
Geology of the Himalaya
El Niño-Southern Oscillation
Winter storm
From 2000-2013 the global ocean surface temperature rise paused, in spite of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. This period, referred to as the Global Warming Hiatus, raised a lot of public and scientific interest. However, as of April 2014 ocean warming has picked up speed again, according to Timmermann's analysis of ocean temperature datasets.
"The 2014 global ocean warming is mostly due to the North Pacific, which has warmed far beyond any recorded value and has shifted hurricane tracks, weakened trade winds, and produced coral bleaching in the Hawaiian Islands," explains Timmermann.
He describes the events leading up to this upswing as follows: Sea-surface temperatures started to rise unusually quickly in the extratropical North Pacific already in January 2014. A few months later, in April and May, westerly winds pushed a huge amount of very warm water usually stored in the western Pacific along the equator to the eastern Pacific. This warm water has spread along the North American Pacific coast, releasing into the atmosphere enormous amounts of heat--heat that had been locked up in the Western tropical Pacific for nearly a decade.
"Record-breaking greenhouse gas concentrations and anomalously weak North Pacific summer trade winds, which usually cool the ocean surface, have contributed further to the rise in sea surface temperatures. The warm temperatures now extend in a wide swath from just north of Papua New Guinea to the Gulf of Alaska," says Timmermann.
The current record-breaking temperatures indicate that the 14-year-long pause in ocean warming has come to an end.
Story Source:
The above story is based on materials provided by University of Hawaii ‑ SOEST. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.
Cite This Page:
MLA APA Chicago
University of Hawaii ‑ SOEST. "Warmest oceans ever recorded." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 14 November 2014. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141114090009.htm>.
Warmest oceans ever recorded
Date:
November 14, 2014
Source:
University of Hawaii ‑ SOEST
Summary:
This summer has seen the highest global mean sea surface temperatures ever recorded. Temperatures even exceed those of the record-breaking 1998 El Nino year.
Share This
Email to a friend
Google+
Print this page
Figure 1: a) NOAA Sea Surface Temperature anomaly (with respect to period 1854-2013) averaged over global oceans (red) and over North Pacific (0-60oN, 110oE-100oW) (cyan). September 2014 temperatures broke the record for both global and North Pacific Sea Surface Temperatures. b) Sea Surface Temperature anomaly of September 2014 from NOAA's ERSST dataset.
Credit: Axel Timmermann
[Click to enlarge image]
"This summer has seen the highest global mean sea surface temperatures ever recorded since their systematic measuring started. Temperatures even exceed those of the record-breaking 1998 El Niño year," says Axel Timmermann, climate scientist and professor, studying variability of the global climate system at the International Pacific Research Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Related Articles
Krakatoa
Breaking wave
Temperature record of the past 1000 years
Geology of the Himalaya
El Niño-Southern Oscillation
Winter storm
From 2000-2013 the global ocean surface temperature rise paused, in spite of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. This period, referred to as the Global Warming Hiatus, raised a lot of public and scientific interest. However, as of April 2014 ocean warming has picked up speed again, according to Timmermann's analysis of ocean temperature datasets.
"The 2014 global ocean warming is mostly due to the North Pacific, which has warmed far beyond any recorded value and has shifted hurricane tracks, weakened trade winds, and produced coral bleaching in the Hawaiian Islands," explains Timmermann.
He describes the events leading up to this upswing as follows: Sea-surface temperatures started to rise unusually quickly in the extratropical North Pacific already in January 2014. A few months later, in April and May, westerly winds pushed a huge amount of very warm water usually stored in the western Pacific along the equator to the eastern Pacific. This warm water has spread along the North American Pacific coast, releasing into the atmosphere enormous amounts of heat--heat that had been locked up in the Western tropical Pacific for nearly a decade.
"Record-breaking greenhouse gas concentrations and anomalously weak North Pacific summer trade winds, which usually cool the ocean surface, have contributed further to the rise in sea surface temperatures. The warm temperatures now extend in a wide swath from just north of Papua New Guinea to the Gulf of Alaska," says Timmermann.
The current record-breaking temperatures indicate that the 14-year-long pause in ocean warming has come to an end.
Story Source:
The above story is based on materials provided by University of Hawaii ‑ SOEST. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.
Cite This Page:
MLA APA Chicago
University of Hawaii ‑ SOEST. "Warmest oceans ever recorded." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 14 November 2014. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141114090009.htm>.
Attachments
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141110161136.htm
Global warming not just a blanket: In the long run, it's more like tanning oil
Date:
November 10, 2014
Source:
University of Washington
Summary:
Instead of carbon dioxide being like a blanket that slowly warms the planet, after about a decade most warming comes from melting ice and snow and a more moist atmosphere, which both cause Earth to absorb more shortwave radiation from the sun.
Share This
Email to a friend
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Google+
Print this page
The sun emits short, high-energy wavelengths: visible light and ultraviolet radiation. Earth absorbs this energy and emits it as long-wave, or infrared, radiation.
Credit: EPA
[Click to enlarge image]
While computer models churn out bleak forecasts for the planet's future, we also have a more conceptual understanding of what is happening as humans pump carbon dioxide into the air. But the conceptual understanding of carbon dioxide wrapping the planet in a blanket that traps more heat is not quite right.
Related Articles
Earth's atmosphere
Greenhouse effect
Carbon dioxide
Carbon dioxide sink
Larsen Ice Shelf
Antarctic ice sheet
A new study from the University of Washington and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology hopes to complete the understanding of what happens to the planet under climate change. Instead of carbon dioxide, or CO2, creating a blanket to slowly warm the planet, a paper this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows the story is a little more complicated -- though the ending is, unfortunately, the same.
"This is a neat study in that it changes the way we think about the climate system," said lead author Aaron Donohoe, a postdoctoral researcher at MIT who is now beginning as a research associate at the UW's Applied Physics Laboratory. "We looked at processes that are well captured in the models, but the conceptual understanding of how they work hasn't been fleshed out before."
When CO2 is first added, it does act as a blanket, trapping long-wave infrared energy coming off Earth. The atmosphere then emits less of this long-wave radiation to space because the upper atmosphere is cooler than Earth's surface, just as the top of your blanket is cooler than your body. But Earth gradually heats up under this blanket, and hotter objects emit more long-wave radiation, so within about a decade the effect of adding the thicker blanket has been canceled by the warmer body emitting more energy.
So what keeps the planet warming after the first decade? In the longer term, the study shows that Earth begins to absorb more shortwave radiation -- the high-energy rays coming directly from the sun.
Previously people had shied away from talking about shortwave radiation because clouds can reflect this visible light back to space, and clouds remain one of the big unknowns under climate change.
Regardless of what happens to clouds, these researchers say, the planet is likely to have less ice and the air will become more humid under climate change, both of which will act to absorb more shortwave radiation from the sun. Those effects will be like putting tanning oil on the planet, letting it absorb more of the sun's incoming rays.
Melting ice creates darker surfaces that can absorb more heat, and the more melting the more heat it can absorb. Likewise, warmer air holds more water vapor, causing it to absorb solar radiation that might otherwise bounce back off clouds, ice or snow.
"While greenhouse gases trap one type of radiation, it's the other type -- visible, shortwave radiation -- that is really sustaining global warming over the long term," said co-author Kyle Armour, a postdoctoral researcher at MIT who will join the UW faculty this fall with a joint appointment in oceanography and atmospheric sciences.
The result could help people better conceptualize global warming. It could also help better detect climate change in satellite data, which can measure both shortwave radiation reflected by Earth and long-wave radiation emitted by Earth.
Most of the study's simulations involved a one-time addition of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. One scenario simulated continuously increasing CO2, as is happening now -- in that case, the long-wave radiation effect lasted about 20 years before the shortwave effect took over.
"Our results do not change our overall expectation that the planet will continue to warm due to the burning of fossil fuels, but they do change our fundamental understanding of how that warming comes about," said co-author David Battisti, a UW professor of atmospheric sciences.
The study supports what scientists are seeing in models and observations, Battisti added.
Story Source:
The above story is based on materials provided by University of Washington. The original article was written by Hannah Hickey. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.
Journal Reference:
A. Donohoe, K. C. Armour, A. G. Pendergrass, D. S. Battisti. Shortwave and longwave radiative contributions to global warming under increasing CO2. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2014; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1412190111
Global warming not just a blanket: In the long run, it's more like tanning oil
Date:
November 10, 2014
Source:
University of Washington
Summary:
Instead of carbon dioxide being like a blanket that slowly warms the planet, after about a decade most warming comes from melting ice and snow and a more moist atmosphere, which both cause Earth to absorb more shortwave radiation from the sun.
Share This
Email to a friend
Google+
Print this page
The sun emits short, high-energy wavelengths: visible light and ultraviolet radiation. Earth absorbs this energy and emits it as long-wave, or infrared, radiation.
Credit: EPA
[Click to enlarge image]
While computer models churn out bleak forecasts for the planet's future, we also have a more conceptual understanding of what is happening as humans pump carbon dioxide into the air. But the conceptual understanding of carbon dioxide wrapping the planet in a blanket that traps more heat is not quite right.
Related Articles
Earth's atmosphere
Greenhouse effect
Carbon dioxide
Carbon dioxide sink
Larsen Ice Shelf
Antarctic ice sheet
A new study from the University of Washington and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology hopes to complete the understanding of what happens to the planet under climate change. Instead of carbon dioxide, or CO2, creating a blanket to slowly warm the planet, a paper this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows the story is a little more complicated -- though the ending is, unfortunately, the same.
"This is a neat study in that it changes the way we think about the climate system," said lead author Aaron Donohoe, a postdoctoral researcher at MIT who is now beginning as a research associate at the UW's Applied Physics Laboratory. "We looked at processes that are well captured in the models, but the conceptual understanding of how they work hasn't been fleshed out before."
When CO2 is first added, it does act as a blanket, trapping long-wave infrared energy coming off Earth. The atmosphere then emits less of this long-wave radiation to space because the upper atmosphere is cooler than Earth's surface, just as the top of your blanket is cooler than your body. But Earth gradually heats up under this blanket, and hotter objects emit more long-wave radiation, so within about a decade the effect of adding the thicker blanket has been canceled by the warmer body emitting more energy.
So what keeps the planet warming after the first decade? In the longer term, the study shows that Earth begins to absorb more shortwave radiation -- the high-energy rays coming directly from the sun.
Previously people had shied away from talking about shortwave radiation because clouds can reflect this visible light back to space, and clouds remain one of the big unknowns under climate change.
Regardless of what happens to clouds, these researchers say, the planet is likely to have less ice and the air will become more humid under climate change, both of which will act to absorb more shortwave radiation from the sun. Those effects will be like putting tanning oil on the planet, letting it absorb more of the sun's incoming rays.
Melting ice creates darker surfaces that can absorb more heat, and the more melting the more heat it can absorb. Likewise, warmer air holds more water vapor, causing it to absorb solar radiation that might otherwise bounce back off clouds, ice or snow.
"While greenhouse gases trap one type of radiation, it's the other type -- visible, shortwave radiation -- that is really sustaining global warming over the long term," said co-author Kyle Armour, a postdoctoral researcher at MIT who will join the UW faculty this fall with a joint appointment in oceanography and atmospheric sciences.
The result could help people better conceptualize global warming. It could also help better detect climate change in satellite data, which can measure both shortwave radiation reflected by Earth and long-wave radiation emitted by Earth.
Most of the study's simulations involved a one-time addition of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. One scenario simulated continuously increasing CO2, as is happening now -- in that case, the long-wave radiation effect lasted about 20 years before the shortwave effect took over.
"Our results do not change our overall expectation that the planet will continue to warm due to the burning of fossil fuels, but they do change our fundamental understanding of how that warming comes about," said co-author David Battisti, a UW professor of atmospheric sciences.
The study supports what scientists are seeing in models and observations, Battisti added.
Story Source:
The above story is based on materials provided by University of Washington. The original article was written by Hannah Hickey. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.
Journal Reference:
A. Donohoe, K. C. Armour, A. G. Pendergrass, D. S. Battisti. Shortwave and longwave radiative contributions to global warming under increasing CO2. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2014; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1412190111
Attachments
Cuba Libre
Well-Known Member
My brain hurts AA....and what is hurting is the constant denial of FACTS!!!! How can people be so stupid ( but then again, there are a whole bunch of "creationists" that say man walked along side the dinosaurs ...DUH!)
GLG
Well-Known Member
Oh.. the plant food argument.... yea ... well perhaps watch this and see how good CO2 is with feeding plans and anyone else.
[g093lhtpEFo] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g093lhtpEFo
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Nice try GLG.
Trenberth debunks himself: The oceans didn't eat the global warming 'missing heat'
Trenberth vs. Trenberth
Kevin "it's a travesty!" Trenberth has published a new paper today in the Journal of Climate, which shows that the rate of change of global ocean heat content has decreased since ~2001, contradicting his prior claim that the 'pause' of global warming can be explained by an increase in the rate of ocean 'missing heat' uptake.
Fig 5 from Trenberth's new paper showing the rate of change in global ocean heat content decreased since ~2001 throughout the 'pause'
Trenberth's new paper claims the Sun is responsible for 15% of climate change on decadal timescales, but his analysis conveniently ignores hundreds of peer-reviewed published papers finding solar amplification mechanisms including via clouds and ENSO that alone can account for 95% of climate change over the past 400 years.
Related:
Dr. Judith Curry demolishes claim that the oceans 'ate the global warming' & 'missing heat' excuse for the 'pause' in global warming.
The global oceans have warmed only 0.09C over the past 55 years, which in turn could only warm the atmosphere by a maximum of an additional 0.09C due to the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
Alarmist becomes skeptic on climate models: Trenberth admits new paper 'undermines the confidence in models...& so why should we trust their future projections?"
RealClimate admits doubling CO2 could only heat the oceans 0.002ºC at most
Full paper available at link at top of post
Journal of Climate 2014 ; e-View
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00294.1
Earth’s Energy Imbalance
Kevin E. Trenberth,1 John T. Fasullo,1 and Magdalena A. Balmaseda2
1 National Center for Atmospheric Research,3 Boulder, CO 80307
2 European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts, Shinfield Park, Reading RG2 9AX, UK.
Abstract
Climate change from increased greenhouse gases arises from a global energy imbalance at the top-of-atmosphere (TOA). TOA measurements of radiation from space can track changes over time but lack absolute accuracy. An inventory of energy storage changes shows that over 90% of the imbalance is manifested as a rise in ocean heat content (OHC). We use ORAS4 ocean reanalysis data and other OHC estimated rates of change to compare with model-based estimates of TOA energy imbalance (from CCSM4), and with TOA satellite measurements for the year 2000 onwards. Most ocean-only OHC analyses extend to only 700 m depth, have large discrepancies among the rates of change of OHC, and do not resolve interannual variability adequately to capture ENSO and volcanic eruption effects, all aspects that are improved with assimilation of multi-variate data. ORAS4 rates-of-change of OHC quantitatively agree with the radiative forcing estimates of impacts of the 3 major volcanic eruptions since 1960 (Mt. Agung 1963, El Chichón 1982, and Mt. Pinatubo 1991). The natural variability of the energy imbalance is substantial from month-to-month associated with cloud and weather variations, and interannually mainly associated with ENSO, while the Sun affects 15% of the climate change signal on decadal timescales. All estimates (OHC and TOA) show that over the past decade the energy imbalance ranges between about 0.5 and 1 W m-2. By using the full-depth ocean, there is a better overall accounting for energy, but discrepancies remain at interannual timescales between OHC and TOA-based estimates, notably in 2008-09.
Trenberth debunks himself: The oceans didn't eat the global warming 'missing heat'
Trenberth vs. Trenberth
Kevin "it's a travesty!" Trenberth has published a new paper today in the Journal of Climate, which shows that the rate of change of global ocean heat content has decreased since ~2001, contradicting his prior claim that the 'pause' of global warming can be explained by an increase in the rate of ocean 'missing heat' uptake.
Fig 5 from Trenberth's new paper showing the rate of change in global ocean heat content decreased since ~2001 throughout the 'pause'
Trenberth's new paper claims the Sun is responsible for 15% of climate change on decadal timescales, but his analysis conveniently ignores hundreds of peer-reviewed published papers finding solar amplification mechanisms including via clouds and ENSO that alone can account for 95% of climate change over the past 400 years.
Related:
Dr. Judith Curry demolishes claim that the oceans 'ate the global warming' & 'missing heat' excuse for the 'pause' in global warming.
The global oceans have warmed only 0.09C over the past 55 years, which in turn could only warm the atmosphere by a maximum of an additional 0.09C due to the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
Alarmist becomes skeptic on climate models: Trenberth admits new paper 'undermines the confidence in models...& so why should we trust their future projections?"
RealClimate admits doubling CO2 could only heat the oceans 0.002ºC at most
Full paper available at link at top of post
Journal of Climate 2014 ; e-View
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00294.1
Earth’s Energy Imbalance
Kevin E. Trenberth,1 John T. Fasullo,1 and Magdalena A. Balmaseda2
1 National Center for Atmospheric Research,3 Boulder, CO 80307
2 European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts, Shinfield Park, Reading RG2 9AX, UK.
Abstract
Climate change from increased greenhouse gases arises from a global energy imbalance at the top-of-atmosphere (TOA). TOA measurements of radiation from space can track changes over time but lack absolute accuracy. An inventory of energy storage changes shows that over 90% of the imbalance is manifested as a rise in ocean heat content (OHC). We use ORAS4 ocean reanalysis data and other OHC estimated rates of change to compare with model-based estimates of TOA energy imbalance (from CCSM4), and with TOA satellite measurements for the year 2000 onwards. Most ocean-only OHC analyses extend to only 700 m depth, have large discrepancies among the rates of change of OHC, and do not resolve interannual variability adequately to capture ENSO and volcanic eruption effects, all aspects that are improved with assimilation of multi-variate data. ORAS4 rates-of-change of OHC quantitatively agree with the radiative forcing estimates of impacts of the 3 major volcanic eruptions since 1960 (Mt. Agung 1963, El Chichón 1982, and Mt. Pinatubo 1991). The natural variability of the energy imbalance is substantial from month-to-month associated with cloud and weather variations, and interannually mainly associated with ENSO, while the Sun affects 15% of the climate change signal on decadal timescales. All estimates (OHC and TOA) show that over the past decade the energy imbalance ranges between about 0.5 and 1 W m-2. By using the full-depth ocean, there is a better overall accounting for energy, but discrepancies remain at interannual timescales between OHC and TOA-based estimates, notably in 2008-09.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
In conclusion it may be said that the combustion of fossil fuel, whether it be peat from the surface or oil from 10,000 feet below, is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power. For instance the above mentioned small increases of mean temperature would be important at the northern margin of cultivation, and the growth of favourably situated plants is directly proportional to the carbon dioxide pressure (Brown and Escombe, 1905): In any case the return of the deadly glaciers should be delayed indefinitely.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Predictions
1.“Most of the climate models...now project that average global temperatures will rise somewhere from 3 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit toward the middle of next century.... A range as high as 14.4 degrees and 18 degrees cannot be ruled out.”28 —New York Times, January 17, 1989
2. “Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010.”29 —Associated Press, May 15, 1989
3. “Children just aren't going to know what snow is.” 30 —Dr. David Viner, Senior Research Scientist at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent
4. “The entire north polar ice cap will be gone in 5 years.” 31 —Former Vice President Al Gore
1.“Most of the climate models...now project that average global temperatures will rise somewhere from 3 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit toward the middle of next century.... A range as high as 14.4 degrees and 18 degrees cannot be ruled out.”28 —New York Times, January 17, 1989
2. “Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010.”29 —Associated Press, May 15, 1989
3. “Children just aren't going to know what snow is.” 30 —Dr. David Viner, Senior Research Scientist at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent
4. “The entire north polar ice cap will be gone in 5 years.” 31 —Former Vice President Al Gore
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
1“In 1989, Noel Brown, then-Director of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) New York office, warned of a ‘10-year window of opportunity to solve’ global warming. ‘A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.’” 90 —Miami Herald, July 5, 1989
2. “By the year 2100, ‘Global mean sea level will rise 15 to 95 centimeters.’” 91 —New York Times, December 1, 1997
3. “Rising sea levels, desertification and shrinking freshwater supplies will create up to 50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade, experts warn today.” 92 —UK Guardian, October 11, 2005
4. “The last time the world was three degrees warmer than today – which is what we expect later this century – sea levels were 25m higher (75 feet). So that is what we can look forward to if we don’t act soon. None of the current climate and ice models predict this. But I prefer the evidence from the Earth’s history and my own eyes. I think sea-level rise is going to be the big issue soon, more even than warming itself.” 93 —James Hansen, Climate Activist and Adjunct Professor at Columbia University
2. “By the year 2100, ‘Global mean sea level will rise 15 to 95 centimeters.’” 91 —New York Times, December 1, 1997
3. “Rising sea levels, desertification and shrinking freshwater supplies will create up to 50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade, experts warn today.” 92 —UK Guardian, October 11, 2005
4. “The last time the world was three degrees warmer than today – which is what we expect later this century – sea levels were 25m higher (75 feet). So that is what we can look forward to if we don’t act soon. None of the current climate and ice models predict this. But I prefer the evidence from the Earth’s history and my own eyes. I think sea-level rise is going to be the big issue soon, more even than warming itself.” 93 —James Hansen, Climate Activist and Adjunct Professor at Columbia University
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Is the Hockey Stick Graph Dead?
Guest Blogger / 20 hours ago November 15, 2014
Novice warmist debunks Michael Mann
Guest essay by David Hoffer
For those of us who have followed the climate debate for a long time, the notion that Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick graph might be dead is counter intuitive. For us, the Hockey Stick graph is central to the debate. It’s appearance in one brilliant stroke swept all discussion of the physics of climate change aside, wiped out discussion of sensitivity and natural variability, destroyed in the public’s mind any notion other than climate change was catastrophic and already upon us. Even the climate models played second fiddle to Mann’s tree ring chronology. I submit however, that the Hockey Stick is in fact dead, a symbolic (but important) final blow being struck at WUWT, not by a skeptic, but by a warmist. (Patience, I’ll get to that).
Of course Michael Mann is a major thorn in the side for most skeptics. We gnash our teeth as he takes court action to silence his critics, our blood pressure mounts as he continues to present at major climate conferences, and the increasingly shrill claims he makes drive us batty. But the truth is, the last few years haven’t been t that kind to Michael Mann. No longer does his Hockey Stick graph adorn the front covers of major WMO and IPCC reports. The Nobel Prize committee itself has repudiated his claim to a Nobel Prize. His science has been shredded by Steve McIntyre’s work on Climate Audit, and exposed as flawed in front of the Wegman congressional committee. Even his once comrade in arms, Keith Briffa, has published new tree ring chronologies that restore the Medieval Warm Period that Mann apparently worked so hard to erase. There was a brief moment when Mann thought he would be vindicated and back in the lime light with the publication of Marcott et al, but that paper was savaged almost instantly by McIntyre, Eschenbach and others, to the point that even Marcott admitted that it was not robust enough to draw any conclusions about the modern era. Mann’s presence in the climate debate is a pale shadow of what it once was, though he still shows up at speaking engagements with much the same slides, which it seems he hasn’t bothered to update since 2005. It’s like he isn’t even trying anymore.
But the most cruel blow of all (to date) was dealt to Mann’s Hockey Stick, not by some statistician, or paleo scientist, or physicist or geologist…. But by a warmist who showed up on Sept 3rd on WUWT, going by the screen name JoNovace. Her (I assume it is a “her”) screen name was an obvious play on Jo Nova’s good name, but the twist on the word “novice” turned out to be the very personification of cruel irony. JoNovace in fact exposed herself as a novice, and quite unintentionally, debunked the Hockey Stick in just two sentences.
It started in the November 2nd thread by Dr. Tim Ball titled “IPCC Prediction of Severe Weather Increase Based on Fundamental Error”. JoNovace appeared, making the usual warmist troll assertions. She skipped right into appeal to authority, citing the 97% consensus. She asked who readers would accept advice from for cancer treatment, a survey of football [fans] or from medical professionals. A commenter who pointed out the 18 year hiatus to her was rewarded with her claim that this existed only in the blogosphere and the brain dead. In short, the usual warmist talking points presented in the usual fashion sarcastic fashion. A troll so certain she was right, that anything that came out of the mouth of a skeptic must certainly be wrong. Suddenly, everything went sideways very fast for JoNovace. It started with this comment by Alan Miller which I reproduce in full here in italics:
· Alan Millar
November 3, 2014 at 5:04 am
“JoNovace
“…..pontificate that we were actually in a declining temperature period. That is how bonkers your hypothesis is at the moment. ”
I am not as brainy as you guys think you are, I don’t have my own hypothesis plucked out of thin air, I rely on experienced scientist to guide my conclusions”
Ahh so we we have someone who admits that they are just regurgitating someone else’s thoughts and is someone of ‘the Faith’
Well done, very useful!
Perhaps you would like to address my point about the ‘hide the decline’ trees. Mann and others used this paleo record, inter alia, to establish his ‘hockey stick’ As you should know after showing increasing temperatures, in the period from 1960 a period the alarmists are largely basing their AGW hypothesis on the trees actually started to show a sharp decline in temperatures.
They got round this by excising this part of the record and grafting on the actual temperature record. However, even you, in your lack of independent thought, can see that if we looked back at this period from the distant future, without the actual temperature record, you would assume temperatures and the trend were going downwards if you trusted the trees as Mann and his followers have declared they do.
That is why the current hypothesis is bonkers, without actual temperature records for the past, we have no real idea what was happening in such short periods of a few decades a la the period the warmists are currently relying on.
Does that make you think at all or is La La La going off in your brain at the moment?
Alan
And how did JoNovace respond to this well done summary of the “Hide the Decline” debacle? Well, she did so by dispatching Michael Mann and his tree rings to the rubbish heap with just two sentences. Here is her comment in full, in italics, bold mine:
· JoNovace
November 3, 2014 at 5:27 am
“….trees actually started to show a sharp decline in temperatures…..”
Tree rings don’t show temperature, what is your source for this? Tree ring may correlate with temperature if other factors are removed.
“1960 a period the alarmists are largely basing their AGW hypothesis on the trees actually started to show a sharp decline in temperatures.”
…but we know the temperatures were rising so this is nonsense. This is why tree rings dont “show temperature” as you put it.
So there you have it. Mann’s tree rings crushed in just two completely logical sentences, the Hockey Stick graph unceremoniously dumped into history’s dust bin by an erstwhile defendant of the CAGW meme itself. Confronted with Michael Mann’s “science” but without the pomp and ceremony and media spin to give it credibility derives from context and appeal to authority, even a novice to the debate could see the truth. Which is why they (apparently) aren’t including the Hockey Stick graph in Warmist Troll 101 classes anymore.
I pointed out JoNovace’s error to her, that she had just debunked giant tracts of CAGW science. To the best of my knowledge, she hasn’t been heard from since on WUWT. Once can only wonder what kind of epiphany this was for her. But as for Mann and his tree rings…. The warmists don’t drag them out to put on display anymore. Even a Novace can see right through them.
Guest Blogger / 20 hours ago November 15, 2014
Novice warmist debunks Michael Mann
Guest essay by David Hoffer
For those of us who have followed the climate debate for a long time, the notion that Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick graph might be dead is counter intuitive. For us, the Hockey Stick graph is central to the debate. It’s appearance in one brilliant stroke swept all discussion of the physics of climate change aside, wiped out discussion of sensitivity and natural variability, destroyed in the public’s mind any notion other than climate change was catastrophic and already upon us. Even the climate models played second fiddle to Mann’s tree ring chronology. I submit however, that the Hockey Stick is in fact dead, a symbolic (but important) final blow being struck at WUWT, not by a skeptic, but by a warmist. (Patience, I’ll get to that).
Of course Michael Mann is a major thorn in the side for most skeptics. We gnash our teeth as he takes court action to silence his critics, our blood pressure mounts as he continues to present at major climate conferences, and the increasingly shrill claims he makes drive us batty. But the truth is, the last few years haven’t been t that kind to Michael Mann. No longer does his Hockey Stick graph adorn the front covers of major WMO and IPCC reports. The Nobel Prize committee itself has repudiated his claim to a Nobel Prize. His science has been shredded by Steve McIntyre’s work on Climate Audit, and exposed as flawed in front of the Wegman congressional committee. Even his once comrade in arms, Keith Briffa, has published new tree ring chronologies that restore the Medieval Warm Period that Mann apparently worked so hard to erase. There was a brief moment when Mann thought he would be vindicated and back in the lime light with the publication of Marcott et al, but that paper was savaged almost instantly by McIntyre, Eschenbach and others, to the point that even Marcott admitted that it was not robust enough to draw any conclusions about the modern era. Mann’s presence in the climate debate is a pale shadow of what it once was, though he still shows up at speaking engagements with much the same slides, which it seems he hasn’t bothered to update since 2005. It’s like he isn’t even trying anymore.
But the most cruel blow of all (to date) was dealt to Mann’s Hockey Stick, not by some statistician, or paleo scientist, or physicist or geologist…. But by a warmist who showed up on Sept 3rd on WUWT, going by the screen name JoNovace. Her (I assume it is a “her”) screen name was an obvious play on Jo Nova’s good name, but the twist on the word “novice” turned out to be the very personification of cruel irony. JoNovace in fact exposed herself as a novice, and quite unintentionally, debunked the Hockey Stick in just two sentences.
It started in the November 2nd thread by Dr. Tim Ball titled “IPCC Prediction of Severe Weather Increase Based on Fundamental Error”. JoNovace appeared, making the usual warmist troll assertions. She skipped right into appeal to authority, citing the 97% consensus. She asked who readers would accept advice from for cancer treatment, a survey of football [fans] or from medical professionals. A commenter who pointed out the 18 year hiatus to her was rewarded with her claim that this existed only in the blogosphere and the brain dead. In short, the usual warmist talking points presented in the usual fashion sarcastic fashion. A troll so certain she was right, that anything that came out of the mouth of a skeptic must certainly be wrong. Suddenly, everything went sideways very fast for JoNovace. It started with this comment by Alan Miller which I reproduce in full here in italics:
· Alan Millar
November 3, 2014 at 5:04 am
“JoNovace
“…..pontificate that we were actually in a declining temperature period. That is how bonkers your hypothesis is at the moment. ”
I am not as brainy as you guys think you are, I don’t have my own hypothesis plucked out of thin air, I rely on experienced scientist to guide my conclusions”
Ahh so we we have someone who admits that they are just regurgitating someone else’s thoughts and is someone of ‘the Faith’
Well done, very useful!
Perhaps you would like to address my point about the ‘hide the decline’ trees. Mann and others used this paleo record, inter alia, to establish his ‘hockey stick’ As you should know after showing increasing temperatures, in the period from 1960 a period the alarmists are largely basing their AGW hypothesis on the trees actually started to show a sharp decline in temperatures.
They got round this by excising this part of the record and grafting on the actual temperature record. However, even you, in your lack of independent thought, can see that if we looked back at this period from the distant future, without the actual temperature record, you would assume temperatures and the trend were going downwards if you trusted the trees as Mann and his followers have declared they do.
That is why the current hypothesis is bonkers, without actual temperature records for the past, we have no real idea what was happening in such short periods of a few decades a la the period the warmists are currently relying on.
Does that make you think at all or is La La La going off in your brain at the moment?
Alan
And how did JoNovace respond to this well done summary of the “Hide the Decline” debacle? Well, she did so by dispatching Michael Mann and his tree rings to the rubbish heap with just two sentences. Here is her comment in full, in italics, bold mine:
· JoNovace
November 3, 2014 at 5:27 am
“….trees actually started to show a sharp decline in temperatures…..”
Tree rings don’t show temperature, what is your source for this? Tree ring may correlate with temperature if other factors are removed.
“1960 a period the alarmists are largely basing their AGW hypothesis on the trees actually started to show a sharp decline in temperatures.”
…but we know the temperatures were rising so this is nonsense. This is why tree rings dont “show temperature” as you put it.
So there you have it. Mann’s tree rings crushed in just two completely logical sentences, the Hockey Stick graph unceremoniously dumped into history’s dust bin by an erstwhile defendant of the CAGW meme itself. Confronted with Michael Mann’s “science” but without the pomp and ceremony and media spin to give it credibility derives from context and appeal to authority, even a novice to the debate could see the truth. Which is why they (apparently) aren’t including the Hockey Stick graph in Warmist Troll 101 classes anymore.
I pointed out JoNovace’s error to her, that she had just debunked giant tracts of CAGW science. To the best of my knowledge, she hasn’t been heard from since on WUWT. Once can only wonder what kind of epiphany this was for her. But as for Mann and his tree rings…. The warmists don’t drag them out to put on display anymore. Even a Novace can see right through them.
Rather than posting new "claims" which may or may not be BS but which would require additional effort to verify and to see what the surrounding context implies, can't you do the above? E.g. was the cut and paste referring to Gavin Atkins claim verifiable or not? One of the standard tactics of one who can't win a specific argument is to change it to something different or to take a different tact. "Confuse and distract" has worked so well for the right wing in the US, that it's applied to everything - healthcare, climate science, net neutrality, etc. What results is a thread like this - lots of stuff but not much actual thinking.
Dave H
Well-Known Member
OBD is a big user of what is known as a "Gish Gallop", named after Duane Gish who developed it as a debating technique for forums like this.
Simply post as many tidbits as possible and then if the opponent actually does go thru all of them to refute them, simply ignore that and make another post with a large number of different tidbits, BS or not, and repeat as required.
Galloper/deniers never concede a point, no matter how much data supports it, but will lap up and regurgitate anything from two or three well known industry flacks, despite there often being no data at all supporting their claims.
A combination of gish galloping and strawman creations can lead one away from the facts and into a never-ending dialogue should one be so foolish as to engage the galloper at their level.
I just laugh at them myself.
Take care.
GLG
Well-Known Member
That's not what the paper says. That's your side "making stuff up" again. Did you read the paper? Probably not, right. So if your side is going to tie your horse on climate change on this paper then be my guest. You have just scored a goal on your own teams net. The only other logical explanation would be that your team, (and you) now confirmed that AGW is true and it's very serious. I have my doubts that's going to happen.
Want proof.... perhaps you could watch this video from an interview with the scientist that authored the paper in question. Like I said go ahead and tie your you horse to that paper. LOL
[eQEOPACnT4g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQEOPACnT4g
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Just doing exactly what everyone else is doing.
As noted there is not one global scientist in the group.
They google up all the stuff they use.
Just ensuring that other opinions are noted.
As noted there is not one global scientist in the group.
They google up all the stuff they use.
Just ensuring that other opinions are noted.
Last edited by a moderator:
tubber
Well-Known Member
Human caused global warming is fact, so how can there be other "opinions", OBD? Your writing indicates you are not an unintelligent person, implying you do not post the way you do because you are a sheep or an idiot. So this whole thread raises questions as to what your agenda is.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/13/guy-stewart-callendar/
This whole article is close to my thinking of science.
No ******** that the sky is falling like many of the people here like to believe in.
Global warming and cooling always was and always will be. Mans effect via carbon dioxide of altering the earth to the extent expressed by some i do not buy.
Check out the list of predictions i have put up.
It is interesting to note the opinions of people who are closed minded about this and if you show anything to disprove they instantly go to bulling or name calling.
It is also interesting to see as time goes on more scientists are questioning things.
This subject of man made global warming is not resolved yet. It is not a fact and deserves to have both sides available for viewing or discussion.
As i noted before all the other posters just google up their information and they think that is fine for them.
However they seem to think it is not ok for others.
This whole article is close to my thinking of science.
No ******** that the sky is falling like many of the people here like to believe in.
Global warming and cooling always was and always will be. Mans effect via carbon dioxide of altering the earth to the extent expressed by some i do not buy.
Check out the list of predictions i have put up.
It is interesting to note the opinions of people who are closed minded about this and if you show anything to disprove they instantly go to bulling or name calling.
It is also interesting to see as time goes on more scientists are questioning things.
This subject of man made global warming is not resolved yet. It is not a fact and deserves to have both sides available for viewing or discussion.
As i noted before all the other posters just google up their information and they think that is fine for them.
However they seem to think it is not ok for others.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
