Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Something's Going On

EM, &Raff, don't you think it is upto Climate Scientists to prove manmade CO2 has a link to the current change in climate first, before attributing blame for a flood?

You have obviously familiarised yourselves with all the other factors that reduce the capacity of rivers to carry rainfall to the sea? You are quite sure that all old bridges have been maintained in accordance with the recommendations of the engineers employed to do such work?

Is the current lack of a seasonal flu epidemic due to climate change?

Jan 1, 2016 at 6:30 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

michael hart, modern technology allows climate scientists to imagine a virtual reality climate moisture meter on Noah's Ark. It is fully adjustable to allow any conclusion to be drawn.

Reality Climate suspends all belief systems apart from their own.

Jan 1, 2016 at 6:43 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Raff, do you have any experience of talking to people who have just suffered some calamity or disaster, and how it is easy to get them to blame something or anything?

Perhaps those people in countries like India, dying through lack of electricity, denied to them by climate experts, should be given the opportunity to direct their rage and hatred?

Jan 1, 2016 at 7:12 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Michael hart

In the laboratory air can hold about7% more water per 1C.warming. . The temperature record is showing +1C since 1880.

Why do you keep asking me these questions? Are sceptics too stupid to work these things out for yourselves?

Jan 1, 2016 at 8:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM, why are climate scientists so stupid and incompetent, that they keeping going on about CO2 being the cause of climate change, without any proof?

Haven't you 'moved on' from 'old hat' Arrhenius obsession yet? People are dying through lack of fossil fuelled electricity, every hour of every day.

Jan 1, 2016 at 8:53 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Golf Charlie

Why are you asking me for information?

Is your question rhetorical or are you, like Michael hart, incapable of research?

Jan 1, 2016 at 9:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM, it hasn't risen that much, and you know it. And the amount it has risen cannot properly be attributed as being due to human activity.

You are starting off the new year in a bad way with deflection, deception, lying, and, possibly, stupidity.
Congratulations. The only way is up.

Happy 2016.

Jan 1, 2016 at 10:24 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

EM, there is no research that has found a link between CO2 and climate. So what is the point in anyone asking someone claiming to be a climate expert for anything?

Climate scientists couldn't even deliver a pizza. Pizza delivery drivers do benefit society, climate scientists don't.


I would also refer you to michael hart @ 10:24

Jan 1, 2016 at 11:37 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Lewes didn't flood this year.

Jan 1, 2016 at 11:39 PM | Unregistered Commenternot banned yet

In the laboratory air can hold about7% more water per 1C.warming. . The temperature record is showing +1C since 1880.
(...)
Jan 1, 2016 at 8:06 PM Entropic man

EM, in trying to analyse complicated nonlinear systems it's a big mistake to think that actual values of a field can be replaced by its mean value and still give you meaningful results. I'm not sure if you understand this point, because you often seem to quote "the temperature record" as if it has some sort of physical meaning.

"In the laboratory air can hold about7% more water per 1C.warming. . The temperature record is showing +1C since 1880." But so what? If the temperature above land areas has gone up, that could well result in lower relative humidity, with fewer clouds.

Jan 2, 2016 at 9:15 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

EM, to amplify Martin A’s comment, above:

In the laboratory air can hold about7% more water ….
Note – "...can hold...”; not “...does hold...” and not “...will hold...”, but “...can hold...”.

Maybe I am being stupid, but the air over a desert may be 40°C warmer than the air over Britain, but I suspect it will not hold 280% more water. Also, why are floods more frequent in winter than when the air temperature can considerably warmer in summer, when droughts are more frequent?

Jan 2, 2016 at 11:13 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

RR: The winds from the West blowing over the Sahara arrive laden with water from the Atlantic. But not a cloud to be seen there. Compare that the winds from the West blowing over the West of England in winter - no shortage of clouds and of rain.

Attributing noticable effects on floods etc to a 1°C temperature change is - - clutching at straws?

Jan 2, 2016 at 11:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

Entropic Buffoon, hopefully you have now also sobered up enough to realise what a foolish idea it is to talk about an x % rise in humidity due to a 1°C rise in temperature.

The vapour pressure of water rises exponentially with temperature, so a rise of 1°C in, say, Arctic air from -30°C to -29°C would mean a rise in water content far, far lower than would a rise from +29°C to +30°C in the Tropics.
Your assertion is meaningless as a stand-alone statement, like so much you pour forth for our benefit. You used to teach schoolchildren bright enough to understand this, so why do you parade such stupidity here where merely using a number impresses almost nobody?


This is the same basic scientific and mathematical error that is made by people who talk of (potential) oceanic pH changes as, say, "an x % increase in [H+]".

Such people either don't understand the offence against maths, science & understanding they are committing, or they do understand it, but choose to do it anyway for suspect motives.

Such people are ignorant, or they are so deceptive as to be effectively liars. Which will you take?

Jan 2, 2016 at 1:01 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Michael hart, martin A, Radical Rodent

I was talking about absolute humidity in the 10-15C range, the global average. It should have been obvious from context. Your pedantry is noted, as is that of Radical Rodent and Martin A.

The question remains. Why ask me when you are quite capable of finding out for yourself? As a group you have a foolish tendency to ask rhetorical questions for which your beliefs have already provided a scientifically incorrect answer.

Within your own echo chamber you can reinforce each other's delusions, but to an outside observer your approach sounds foolish. This is probably why you do not last long on blogs outside the deniosphere. You are quickly identified as trolls and excluded.
If you took a more positive line and actually argued your case with peer reviewed evidence, you might last longer.


Martin A

I hope you will forgive my pedantry, but the prevailing winds in the Sahara come from the Northeast, not the West.

Jan 2, 2016 at 2:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

I was thinking about the problem of attributing particular floods to climate change.

A quick and dirty possibility is this. Consider a river which on average burst its banks five times a year 100 years ago. The average now is ten times a year.

Bursting the banks represents a threshold, enough rainfall to fill the river. Over 100 years the frequency of reaching this threshold has doubled.

You insist on trying to ascribe individual floods to climate change? Presumably five of the recent floods would have happened anyway and the extra ones would be due to climate change. The five strongest would have happened anyway.

The five weakest floods would be due to climate change. Without the extra rainfall they would have remained below the threshold and would not have occurred.

Jan 2, 2016 at 2:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Michael hart

"The vapour pressure of water rises exponentially with temperature, "

Do you put this forward as a reason for global warming? It means that the water vapour greenhouse effect would show a strong positive feedback.

Jan 2, 2016 at 3:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Martin A
I hope you will forgive my pedantry, but the prevailing winds in the Sahara come from the Northeast, not the West.
Jan 2, 2016 at 2:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Of course, EM, pedantry forgiven.

However, I don't think I said anything about where the prevailing winds in the Saharah come from, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.


....Every Saharawi in a refugee camp is sleeping facing the west side because the winds from the Atlantic Ocean are believed to be the sacred winds that bring Barara(good luck) for them. The Westerly Wind is coming to them from the Atlantic Ocean across the Western Sahara to the refuge camp. They are going to sleep with the wind and they believe that in time they can go back to their country...

Jan 2, 2016 at 3:15 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Martin A, Raadiiccal rodent

From the Sahara desert entry at DesertUSA.

"The prevailing wind, which blows from the northeast toward the equator throughout the year, accounts for the desert's aridness. As the wind moves southwestward, the air warms, dissipating moisture that might otherwise be released as rainfall. "

There is a brief and unreliable wet season in the Western Sahara.Temporary west winds would account for it Perhaps this is why the Barara is regarded as lucky.

Jan 2, 2016 at 3:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

You really are clutching at straws, EM. The main reason I have been excluded from sites is because I keep asking questions, challenging the dearly-held beliefs, and presenting the facts to back my arguments. I do try to present evidence on its own merits, without having it “interpreted” by peer-reviewed publications (remember Diedrik Stapel). The general response to my questions on believers’ sites tends to be one of ridicule, vilification and insult, as well as recommendations to self-harm and suicide – not, I would have thought (even to you) rational arguments.

The only questions I ask of you are for you to clarify what you have said, though I do notice that you rarely actually answer any, so they are, in effect, rhetorical. I do not seek a “win” over you; I do not have “beliefs”, I merely seek facts. None of those I have found lead me anywhere close to where you are. Let me present you with some facts that few will argue with: the Arctic is still ice-covered, despite the prediction that it would be clear around now; there have been times in recent history (i.e. 1920s-30s) when the Arctic was as ice-free (or even more so) as the present; children still know what snow is; the Antarctic ice pack is at record levels; the temperatures are nowhere near those predicted by the 70+ GCMs; CO2 levels continue to rise at a more or less steady pace; the world has not warmed significantly for over 18 years – the 60+ peer-reviewed papers attempting to explain it do suggest that the scientific community are not in agreement with your belief that there has been no “pause”. Who is in denial? What would it take for you to accept that the world is no longer warming? What would it take for you to accept the world is actually cooling?

Jan 2, 2016 at 4:58 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

As for flooding being ascribed to climate change, rather than intransigent weather, I think it would have to be several years of unusually high rainfall over a sufficiently wide area during periods not usually associated with excessive rainfall. Even if Carlisle were to have “unprecedented”, 1 in 100 years, flooding for the next 5 winters, it would still not qualify as a result of CC.

Jan 2, 2016 at 5:13 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Ratty, the only hit for you at ATTP is this comment from August last year:

Ah, “climate” – a catch-all word that specifies nothing. There is no global “climate”; climate tends to be more regional; thus the climate of the UK (for example) is different from the climate of France (indeed, even within the UK, there are definite regional climates); which of these is definitely changing? Indeed, given the vagaries of the British climate, is it possible to identify any change in it? Can anyone actually point out any particular region where the climate has demonstrably changed, and in what manner is that change?
ATTP answered politely enough but declined to answer your question:
Radical,
I’ll post your comment, but I’m not planning to bother answering it. Unless I’m mistaken, you dispute the existence of the Greenhouse effect, which – if true – just means that there isn’t much point me responding.
Nobody threw "ridicule, vilification and insult" at you or "recommendations to self-harm and suicide". In fact everyone just ignored you. You don't seem to have been "excluded" either, but maybe you consider being ignored to be worse.

And on RealClimate I found just one commment, again with no abuse:

Radical Rodent says:
21 Oct 2013 at 4:50 AM

Could someone please offer an accepted definition of the term CAGW?

[Response: An imaginary concept that is brought forth as an incantation whenever there is a need to ward off the possibility of serious discussion. – gavin]

So can you give some examples of your comments that have provoked abuse and exclusion ( or just the sites). Most sites give some warnings so there should be something left to find.

Jan 2, 2016 at 6:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Radical Rodent

If you reject peer review and statistics you will be rejected.

Jan 2, 2016 at 6:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Alan Reed. My heartfelt apologies, not for being waspish, but for confusing you with EM it's absolutely unforgivable.

Jan 2, 2016 at 6:21 PM | Registered Commentergeronimo

EM all the papers explaining the pause/hiatus in scientific papers by climate scientists were peer reviewed, so why weren't they rejected, because you say there is no pause or hiatus to explain?

So how much of climate science should be removed from the record for passing peer review and statistical analsis by fellow climate scientists?

Climate Science is not the only 'Science' to be riddled with deliberate abuse, but may be the only one that has always depended on it, ab initio.

Jan 2, 2016 at 6:51 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

There is a brief and unreliable wet season in the Western Sahara.Temporary west winds would account for it Perhaps this is why the Barara is regarded as lucky.
Jan 2, 2016 at 3:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

I wonder if there is a folk memory still persisting from when the last rains fell on the Sahara in prehistoric times?

"The prevailing wind, which blows from the northeast toward the equator throughout the year, accounts for the desert's aridness. As the wind moves southwestward, the air warms, dissipating moisture that might otherwise be released as rainfall. "

I guess that "dissipating moisture" is another way of saying "lowering the relative humidity" which, as I surmised, is why flooding is not much of a problem in the Sahara (irrespective of which way the wind is blowing).

Jan 2, 2016 at 7:20 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A