Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

[Tony Crocker]

I agree that some of the anti-AGW research also has biased funding. However, I think it's no coincidence that meteorologists like Bastardi and Sheckter tend to be disproportionately represented in the skeptic camp. Their job is to predict weather over the short/intermediate term. So they have observed impacts of PDO, El Nino/La Nina in the past. In the 1980's and 1990's these factors were tending to bias temperatures upward. So everyone saw the rise in temps, but each side could attribute it to their pet theory. The upcoming decade will be illuminating because now the theories predict opposite results.

So the past winter/spring are, as I titled the post, round 1 in what will take many more years to provide some clarity. If warming resumes at a pace like the 1990's I'll be more than willing to assign far more credibility to AGW theory than I have so far. I hope Patrick will modify his views accordingly if the temps go the other way. In terms of Riverc0il's valid criticism of anecdotal evidence, I would agree with Joe Bastardi that Arctic summer sea ice is a key item to monitor over the coming decade to get a better handle on whether the past warming is being reversed.

I agree with much of what Geoff recommends. But shift in technology does have to be reasonable economically. Natural gas may be a fossil fuel but it produces ~1/2 as much CO2 as oil, far less than coal and much fewer of other pollutants like acid rain. So pushing electricity generation from coal to gas and Pickens' plan to shift trucking to gas (as has already been done with all the mass transit buses in SoCal) make sense. I also don't see why so much residential heating in the Northeast is still oil instead of gas.

This ain't gonna happen since everybody is afraid of nukes so we're going to continue to spew CO2 at the same rate.

I think this is correct. The AGW science would have to be ironclad and imminent before it would scare people enough to build enough nukes to make a difference. Or a breakthrough in nuclear energy technology to satisfy the safety and economic concerns.

 

[Geoff]

I also don't see why so much residential heating in the Northeast is still oil instead of gas.

Poor pipeline distribution. In New England, we have big LNG tanks and ships that bring it in. LNG isn't as cheap as gas that is piped in. I imagine it is challenging to get the permitting to run a pipeline and the infrastructure is already geard around the LNG profit engine so everybody in the energy business has a vested interest in keeping it that way.

I heat with city gas in my summer place (LNG) and propane at Killington. My Killington condo has a big tank buried near the building and I'm metered by the local "gas company" that owns the tank and fills it.

 

[soulskier]

A Foolproof Way to Talk about Climate Change by Auden Schendler, Grist.org, May 27, 2011

http://www.grist.org/article/a-foolproo ... ate-change

 

[Tony Crocker]

Let’s all agree on some things. First: we know the planet is warming.

True for the 1980's and 1990's, not true for the temperature plateau of the past decade. Since we're pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at an accelerating rate during this time, this is the key issue demonstrating why the climate models need refinement.

Second, we know that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are warming agents; again, that’s not being debated in any circles and is two hundred year old science.

Yes, but most AGW advocates don't like to highlight 2 key facts:
1) The CO2 effect on temps is logarithmic, not linear, and
2) The climate models assume that the CO2 warming will be at least tripled by water vapor feedback effects. The modeling of water vapor and cloud feedbacks (the latter is negative) is very speculative, thus shaky assumptions.

Third, we know that warming of 2-4 degrees C is much more likely to be catastrophic than good for the world.

Due to the points above, the likely effect of the "settled science" regarding CO2 alone without speculative feedback assumptions is more like 1/2 to 1 degree C, which is not catastrophic. They also explain why effects like PDO, La Nina, solar minimum can more than offset greenhouse gas effects in the intermediate term.

Therefore I'm more inclined to support the measures that "make economic sense" and enhance "energy security and getting off foreign oil."

 

[Admin]

I loved Joe in this segment the other night:

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/11/01/me ... ane-sandy/

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tony Crocker]

Yes overall Atlantic hurricane incidence is flat to down since the 1930's. Some people have already forgotten that we had another hurricane (Wilma) that was a big snow generator 7 years ago this month. I'm sure Patrick hasn't forgotten since that one started his now 86-month ski streak.

Nonetheless Round 2 has not been great for Joe Bastardi & company. He has called for declining temps for ~3 years and they remain flat on a high plateau by historical standards. He also said the summer Arctic ice melt would reverse but it set a new record in 2012.

And I'm sure many of you heard about this story last summer:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opini ... wanted=all
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... 2823.story

Muller's study was based upon careful examination of data and concluding that CO2 had the best fit to the 1.5F temperature rise since 1950. It does not address the projection models which Muller still doesn't particularly like.

 

[rfarren]

Nonetheless Round 2 has not been great for Joe Bastardi & company. He has called for declining temps for ~3 years and they remain flat on a high plateau by historical standards. He also said the summer Arctic ice melt would reverse but it set a new record in 2012.

It's funny reading this thread, as very clearly when this thread first came out I was an AGW skeptic. I too like Muller have come around to some degree. I had followed Bastardi's predictions, and they've all been wrong. He's clearly gifted at parsing out individual weather events, but seems less so when it comes to climate predictions. I can't say whether Sandy was a product of a warmer climate, as NYC and New Jersey have previously been affected by Hurricanes. However, there is no doubt that the sea levels are higher now than they were in 1821, which was the previous storm surge record set in NYC. It's the combination of sea level rise (climate) and storm surge(local) which is so dangerous. That being said, I don't know a way to properly legislate against climate change, especially when the problem is global, and there isn't a way forward as of now that is viable.

Muller's study was based upon careful examination of data and concluding that CO2 had the best fit to the 1.5F temperature rise since 1950. It does not address the projection models which Muller still doesn't particularly like.

Seems about right.

 

[jasoncapecod]

Sandy's storm surge was so damaging because , she came a shore during astronomically very high tides..full moon

 

[Admin]

Sandy's storm surge was so damaging because , she came a shore during astronomically very high tides..full moon

And not because of a few-inch rise in MSL over the past 50 years. What I loved about Joe's interview was how he frankly responded to Gore's lunatic rant which was only inspired by Gore's desire to propagate fear in order to make himself more money.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2

 

[rfarren]

Sandy's storm surge was so damaging because , she came a shore during astronomically very high tides..full moon

Yes, the tides were 5 inches higher than normal. The high tide without the surge would've been 5'7", during a half moon it would be 5'2". Certainly, the confluence of high tide made a difference, but then again so did the fact that ocean temps up here were more than 2 degrees warmer than historical temps. That certainly allowed Sandy to retain more strength than the storm would've historically.

 

[rfarren]

And not because of a few-inch rise in MSL over the past 50 years.
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2

Most definitely true, albeit a foot rise over the last century or so, which may very well be in the statistical norm over a 100 year period. That being said, I think the evidence is overwhelmingly strong that global warming has occurred, and that there is no doubt that humans have contributed to it. The warming trend data does support a faster than normal warming trend. What can't be told is whether the feedback effects that the models predict will come to fruition.

 

[Admin]

ocean temps up here were more than 2 degrees warmer than historical temps. That certainly allowed Sandy to retain more strength than the storm would've historically.

No, because Sandy had already become a deep extratropical cyclone long before coming ashore as a result of the merger with a deep trough in the eastern US. She didn't gain her strength from warm water as hurricanes do. In fact, she dipped to a tropical storm while over warmer water before restrengthening over colder water because, coincidentally, that's when she started the merge. See:

http://wasatchweatherweenies.blogspot.c ... y.html?m=1


Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2

 

[rfarren]

No, because Sandy had already become a deep extratropical cyclone long before coming ashore as a result of the merger with a deep trough in the eastern US. She didn't gain her strength from warm water as hurricanes do. In fact, she dipped to a tropical storm while over warmer water before restrengthening over colder water because, coincidentally, that's when she started the merge. See:

http://wasatchweatherweenies.blogspot.c ... y.html?m=1


Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2

I read the high pressure ridge over Greenland that forced Sandy into the low pressure area to east was in large part an anomaly dude to the higher than normal Artic temperatures. This could be wrong. Regardless, whether this storm was or wasn't amplified by global warming, there is no doubt that it is happening, and it's happening faster than historical rates. The long term effects of it GW or if you prefer AGW will become easier to see and cipher over decades.

 

[Admin]

Regardless, whether this storm was or wasn't amplified by global warming, there is no doubt that it is happening, and it's happening faster than historical rates.

No it's not. There is ample data to refute that assertion and in no way is there "no doubt." Go back and reread the East Coast hurricane history of the 1950s and 60s.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2

 

[rfarren]

Regardless, whether this storm was or wasn't amplified by global warming, there is no doubt that it is happening, and it's happening faster than historical rates.

No it's not. There is ample data to refute that assertion and in no way is there "no doubt." Go back and reread the East Coast hurricane history of the 1950s and 60s.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2

Hurricanes are meteorological events and thus aren't an indicator of global warming, so using historical rates of hurricanes certainly wouldn't disprove or prove Global Warming. The overwhelming data that has direct correlation i.e. glacial reduction, artic ice extent, sea temperature, sea acidification etc... those tend to strongly support faster than normal rates of warming.

 

[Admin]

Hurricanes are meteorological events and thus aren't an indicator of global warming, so using historical rates of hurricanes certainly wouldn't disprove or prove Global Warming. The overwhelming data that has direct correlation i.e. glacial reduction, artic ice extent, sea temperature, sea acidification etc... those tend to strongly support faster than normal rates of warming.

I fully agree, but that's not what you said. I was responding to this quote where you erroneously asserted that there was "no doubt" about their increased incidence:

Regardless, whether this storm was or wasn't amplified by global warming, there is no doubt that it is happening, and it's happening faster than historical rates.

That's simply not true.

 

[jasoncapecod]

people have very short memory's when it comes to weather events. If you are a New Yorker you should remember the Dec 10th-12th 1993 storm. It caused wide spread flooding and damage. What about the super storms of 1978 or the biggest super storm of all the 1993 March storm.

Hurricanes are meteorological events and thus aren't an indicator of global warming, so using historical rates of hurricanes certainly wouldn't disprove or prove Global Warming.

+1

 

[rfarren]

Hurricanes are meteorological events and thus aren't an indicator of global warming, so using historical rates of hurricanes certainly wouldn't disprove or prove Global Warming. The overwhelming data that has direct correlation i.e. glacial reduction, artic ice extent, sea temperature, sea acidification etc... those tend to strongly support faster than normal rates of warming.

I fully agree, but that's not what you said. I was responding to this quote where you erroneously asserted that there was "no doubt" about their increased incidence:

Regardless, whether this storm was or wasn't amplified by global warming, there is no doubt that it is happening, and it's happening faster than historical rates.

That's simply not true.

I didn't mean to imply that, just poorly written.

 

[Tony Crocker]

What can't be told is whether the feedback effects that the models predict will come to fruition.

To me that's the attraction of the Muller study, not dependent upon models that have not worked very well. The best guess ought to be future warming from more future CO2 = past warming from CO2 since 1950. That 1.5F degree rise corresponded with CO2 rise from 310 to 390. As the relationship is logarthmic a similar increase might be expected rising from 390 to 490. Not to say there might not be feedbacks (positive or negative) or "tipping points," but we're not in a position to make those kind of assertions with any credibility yet.

I'm with admin all the way on the hurricane issue. No historical evidence that hurricane incidence or intensity is up during the period since 1950. Sort of like North American ski area snowfall.

I guess the bottom line of my view for the time being is that we can probably live with 500-600 CO2 but I wouldn't want it to go up much more than that.

 

[Mike Bernstein]

Hurricanes are meteorological events and thus aren't an indicator of global warming, so using historical rates of hurricanes certainly wouldn't disprove or prove Global Warming. The overwhelming data that has direct correlation i.e. glacial reduction, artic ice extent, sea temperature, sea acidification etc... those tend to strongly support faster than normal rates of warming.

I fully agree, but that's not what you said. I was responding to this quote where you erroneously asserted that there was "no doubt" about their increased incidence:

Regardless, whether this storm was or wasn't amplified by global warming, there is no doubt that it is happening, and it's happening faster than historical rates.

That's simply not true.

Marc -

It was pretty clear he was talking about warming more broadly, not about hurricanes, which you've conveniently ignored.

Think of the kittens indeed.