Texan Hubris and Climate Change Denial

[VanceMack]

Your data are from August 13 years ago.

And there is a reason for that. The questions are does he KNOW why it is and is he honest enough to admit why it is.

 

[calamity]

Most of the deniers rely on discrepancies between the climate models and the recorded temperatures. So, they holler. "Fake Science!"

Well, let's analyze these discrepancies. Shall we?

Here's a nice graph.

The yellow band is the predicted range of climate models; the black, actual temperatures.

Note, the measured trend is consistent with predictions. The error is in the details. So, why the error? This paragraph discusses it.

Why does this discrepancy exist and what does it mean? One possible explanation is an error in the fundamental physics used by the climate models. In addition to this possibility, there are at least three other plausible explanations for the warming rate differences. There are errors in the forcings used as input to the model simulations (these include forcings due to anthropogenic gases and aerosols, volcanic aerosols, solar input, and changes in ozone), errors in the satellite observations (partially addressed by the use of the uncertainty ensemble), and sequences of internal climate variability in the simulations that are difference from what occurred in the real world. We call to these four explanations “model physics errors”, “model input errors”, “observational errors”, and “different variability sequences”. They are not mutually exclusive. In fact, there is hard scientific evidence that all four of these factors contribute to the discrepancy, and that most of it can be explained without resorting to model physics errors. For a detailed discussion of all these reasons, see the post on the Skeptical Science blog by Ben Santer and Carl Mears, and the recent paper in Nature Geoscience by Santer et al.

Climate Analysis | Remote Sensing Systems

All the above being said, however, there is one prediction regarding Climate Change that is hitting the nail on the head. Moisture content in the atmosphere--the root cause for record amounts of rainfall in the Houston storm. Check this out.

 

[bubbabgone]

sigh

Yes, climate change is about global conditions over longer time scales.

Yes, a cold summer day in the southwest corner of Maine is not sufficient to disprove climate change.

No, no one is saying that the existence or intensity of Harvey is proof of climate change or AGW.

No, no one is saying that the only reason that Harvey formed, and was a strong storm, is due to climate change.

Climatologists are pointing out that Harvey was a more intense storm, with more rainfall and storm surge, because of climate change.

Are we clear now?

Why did Harvey stall over land?

 

[calamity]

Your data are from August 13 years ago.

It appears to be the most current Gulf of Mexico temperature graph available. Do you have a more current one?

If so please provide.

 

[VanceMack]

My assumption was that we are talking about 2017, not 2004.

You have to know that since both of them were called out on it, right now at this moment they are desperately using the Google to try to find some indicator they can use to show that even though there has been a severe decrease in hurricanes, that somehow storm activity or...umm...average rainfall...no...ummm...REASONS show that AGW caused the Harvey devastation. Calamity will post something snarky. Tresgoofs will post some **** he doesnt understand but is just SURE it will answer the question...because as he has said...he doesnt have to know what the **** he is on about as long as the person he is quoting does.

 

[Fletch]

sigh

Yes, climate change is about global conditions over longer time scales.

Yes, a cold summer day in the southwest corner of Maine is not sufficient to disprove climate change.

No, no one is saying that the existence or intensity of Harvey is proof of climate change or AGW.

No, no one is saying that the only reason that Harvey formed, and was a strong storm, is due to climate change.

Climatologists are pointing out that Harvey was a more intense storm, with more rainfall and storm surge, because of climate change.

Are we clear now?

Was Harvey really all that intense of a storm? Or was it a problem mainly because it sat in the same place for a week?

 

[Jack Hays]

It appears to be the most current Gulf of Mexico temperature graph available. Do you have a more current one?

If so please provide.

No. That's my point. Neither you nor I have any data to support an AGW-Harvey claim.

 

[VanceMack]

It appears to be the most current Gulf of Mexico temperature graph available. Do you have a more current one?

If so please provide.

How about the actual current table from NOAA.

Hurricanes in History

 

[calamity]

My assumption was that we are talking about 2017, not 2004.

Speaking of 2017

For the first time, the Gulf of Mexico didn’t fall below 73° this winter

The Gulf has been extremely warm this year. In fact, for the first time on record according to Michael Lowry of The Weather Channel, the daily average surface temperature never fell below 73 degrees Fahrenheit during the just-concluded meteorological winter. It's enough for us to wonder, beyond the climate implications of a steamy Gulf and its impact on temperatures in the southern United States, how might the heat affect storm seasons later in the year?

 

[VanceMack]

It appears to be the most current Gulf of Mexico temperature graph available. Do you have a more current one?

If so please provide.

Oh...wait...you wanted Gulf Temps...not the table of actual hurricanes. OK...again...from NOAA....in actual real time...

https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/cwtg/egof_tmap.html

What you will find is that the vast majority of temperatures in the gulf are below statistical means (where they have actual data).

 

[calamity]

How about the actual current table from NOAA.

Hurricanes in History

Uh, that link of yours is not showing me a single temperature over time graph for the GoM. :roll:

 

[VanceMack]

Speaking of 2017

For the first time, the Gulf of Mexico didn’t fall below 73° this winter

:lamo

from YOUR cite...

"More tornadoes? Probably. But there's no link between winter heat and hurricanes."
But what about later this year? Does exceptionally warm water in winter augur a harsh hurricane season? The short answer is not really, says Phil Klotzbach, an atmospheric scientist at Colorado State University who specializes in seasonal hurricane activity. "They really don't correlate well with Atlantic hurricane activity," he said of winter sea surface temperatures. "I think the primary issue is that Gulf sea surface temperatures are always plenty hot to support major hurricane activity during the season."

 

[calamity]

Oh...wait...you wanted Gulf Temps...not the table of actual hurricanes. OK...again...from NOAA....in actual real time...

https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/cwtg/egof_tmap.html

What you will find is that the vast majority of temperatures in the gulf are below statistical means (where they have actual data).

Uh, that link of yours is still not showing me a single temperature over time graph for the GoM.

Do you even know what you are looking for? :lol:

 

[Jack Hays]

Most of the deniers rely on discrepancies between the climate models and the recorded temperatures. So, they holler. "Fake Science!"

Well, let's analyze these discrepancies. Shall we?

Here's a nice graph.

Indeed.

 

[bubbabgone]

Most of the deniers rely on discrepancies between the climate models and the recorded temperatures. So, they holler. "Fake Science!"

Well, let's analyze these discrepancies. Shall we?

Here's a nice graph.

The yellow band is the predicted range of climate models; the black, actual temperatures.

Note, the measured trend is consistent with predictions. The error is in the details. So, why the error? This paragraph discusses it.



All the above being said, however, there is one prediction regarding Climate Change that is hitting the nail on the head. Moisture content in the atmosphere--the root cause for record amounts of rainfall in the Houston storm. Check this out.

...

You don't notice the divergence starting before 2000 in your own graph?
Why the divergence?
The extract you quoted is right but it doesn't support your case ... and Santer is a true-believer.

"There are errors in the forcings used as input to the model simulations (these include forcings due to anthropogenic gases and aerosols, volcanic aerosols, solar input, and changes in ozone), errors in the satellite observations (partially addressed by the use of the uncertainty ensemble), and sequences of internal climate variability in the simulations that are difference from what occurred in the real world."

That is the problem and that will always be a problem as long as the modelers simply don't have a good enough handle on forcings enough to produce valid forecasts.
The likelihood that modelers will ever be able to predict how Nature is going to react to the chaotic and complex menu of forcings is too small to take seriously.

 

[calamity]

:lamo

from YOUR cite...

"More tornadoes? Probably. But there's no link between winter heat and hurricanes."
But what about later this year? Does exceptionally warm water in winter augur a harsh hurricane season? The short answer is not really, says Phil Klotzbach, an atmospheric scientist at Colorado State University who specializes in seasonal hurricane activity. "They really don't correlate well with Atlantic hurricane activity," he said of winter sea surface temperatures. "I think the primary issue is that Gulf sea surface temperatures are always plenty hot to support major hurricane activity during the season."

Yeah, no hurricanes. :roll: I guess you could ignore the documented fact that the Gulf maintained record high temperatures in 2017, and just call Harvey a heavy rain event. :roll:

 

[Cigar]

Ignoring Trends will only hurt the people who a looking the other way ... and those who are conscience of Facts, should just get out of the way and let Nature take it's course.

 

[calamity]

You don't notice the divergence starting before 2000 in your own graph?
Why the divergence?
The extract you quoted is right but it doesn't support your case ... and Santer is a true-believer.

"There are errors in the forcings used as input to the model simulations (these include forcings due to anthropogenic gases and aerosols, volcanic aerosols, solar input, and changes in ozone), errors in the satellite observations (partially addressed by the use of the uncertainty ensemble), and sequences of internal climate variability in the simulations that are difference from what occurred in the real world."

That is the problem and that will always be a problem as long as the modelers simply don't have a good enough handle on forcings enough to produce valid forecasts.
The likelihood that modelers will ever be able to predict how Nature is going to react to the chaotic and complex menu of forcings is too small to take seriously.

The big picture is highly accurate; the precision, not so much.

 

[VanceMack]

Uh, that link of yours is not showing me a single temperature over time graph for the GoM. :roll:

Nope...yo are right...acknowledged in #85 and added the correct cite.

No...what THAT table shows is that the reason your datasets stopped in 2004 ad Tresgoofs stopped in 2006 is because there has been only ONE significant gulf coast hurricane since 2006...and that occurred in 2008. BTW...the 28 deaths cited as either directly or indirectly caused by Ike involved 23 people dead due to a vehicle fire involving a bus and senior citizens evacuating Houston.

 

[calamity]

Ignoring Trends will only hurt the people who a looking the other way ... and those who are conscience of Facts, should just get out of the way and let Nature take it's course.

There is a reason I do not live in Texas, even though seemingly half my family has moved there. And, I never will.

 

[VanceMack]

Yeah, no hurricanes. :roll: I guess you could ignore the documented fact that the Gulf maintained record high temperatures in 2017, and just call Harvey a heavy rain event. :roll:

Classic. YOU post a citation and then want to discount the findings of your expert in your citation.

:lamo

 

[calamity]

Nope...yo are right...acknowledged in #85 and added the correct cite.

No...what THAT table shows is that the reason your datasets stopped in 2004 ad Tresgoofs stopped in 2006 is because there has been only ONE significant gulf coast hurricane since 2006...and that occurred in 2008. BTW...the 28 deaths cited as either directly or indirectly caused by Ike involved 23 people dead due to a vehicle fire involving a bus and senior citizens evacuating Houston.

Well Harvey certainly made up for the dearth of Gulf Canes. Has it not?

 

[Jack Hays]

Speaking of 2017

For the first time, the Gulf of Mexico didn’t fall below 73° this winter

And yet tornadoes are down.

Detrended U.S. Annual Tornado Count 1953 – 2014 (November)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – Storm Prediction Center – Washington Post – Click the pic to view at source​

Tornado counts are Detrended and Inflation Adjusted “because the increase in tornado reports over the last 54 years is almost entirely due to secular trends such as population increase, increased tornado awareness, and more robust and advanced reporting networks.” NOAA – Storm Prediction Center

 

[VanceMack]

Uh, that link of yours is still not showing me a single temperature over time graph for the GoM.

Do you even know what you are looking for? :lol:

Thats showing you every temperature sensing station in the GoM. Its also showing very clearly that temps are well below mean averages in MOST stations with a comparable mean.

 

[calamity]

Classic. YOU post a citation and then want to discount the findings of your expert in your citation.

:lamo

The findings were in the spring, discussing the winter. Here we are now at the end of summer, and voila! A giant hurricane hits dumping 50 inches of rain--a clear indication that those unusually warm Gulf temperatures actually did cause a problem. But, hey. If you feel better in the land of denial. Stay there.