• Member Statistics

    15,535
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    ransom
    Newest Member
    ransom
    Joined
Sign in to follow this  
Jonger

Climate Change Banter

Recommended Posts

No tree ring proxy will capture snowpack variability on a year-to-year resolution. I'm fairly certain this paper doesn't claim otherwise.

 

False. As they point out in the first few paragraphs, the tree ring record reliably captured the extreme droughts of 1934 and 1977 demonstrating year-to-year resolution. This year is worse. Yet again you are jumping to conclusions based on what you want to believe without actually reading. It took me 20 seconds to find this information and another minute to write this post.

 

Our reconstruction shows strong statistical skill but underestimates anomalously high snow water equivalent over the instrumental period (for example in 1952 and 1969). However, snow water equivalent lows (for example in 1934 and 1977) are reliably captured and our reconstruction reveals that the 2015 low is unprecedented in the context of the past 500 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No tree ring proxy will capture snowpack variability on a year-to-year resolution. I'm fairly certain this paper doesn't claim otherwise.

I would grant you that there's some uncertainty in the data, but I'm having a hard time seeing that it really has anything to do with temporal resolution. Tree rings are, by default, have basically 1-year resolution, right?

 

The authors do note that there is the possibility that a few years in the 16th century might possibly have been lower (due to the aforementioned uncertainty), but we're still talking a very long return period (centuries to millennia -- 3100 years according to their method).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No tree ring proxy will capture snowpack variability on a year-to-year resolution. I'm fairly certain this paper doesn't claim otherwise.

 

I remain skeptical on using dendrochronology to estimate temperature changes in climate, because a couple degrees one way or the other won't do much to affect diameter growth.  (Reproductive success in the coldest part of a species' range might be another story.)  However, trees react much more significantly and quickly to large changes in available soil moisture, so for any place where snowpack has a large impact on growing season moisture, tree ring width ought to be a useful proxy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would grant you that there's some uncertainty in the data, but I'm having a hard time seeing that it really has anything to do with temporal resolution. Tree rings are, by default, have basically 1-year resolution, right?

The authors do note that there is the possibility that a few years in the 16th century might possibly have been lower (due to the aforementioned uncertainty), but we're still talking a very long return period (centuries to millennia -- 3100 years according to their method).

The problem is there's so much contamination potential, given the slew of factors that influence tree growth, that isolating a single variable on a 1yr resolution using a tree ring proxy is extremely difficult. I would never attempt to do it myself.

Tree ring spacing is influenced by precipitation, temperature variation on multiple timescales , sunshine hours, wind speed/transevaporation rates, etc, and varies with different tree species. There are a lot of factors that need to be accounted for here.

What they're doing is risky and may flaw the entire study should there not be a way of isolating these phenomena and determining their role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is there's so much contamination potential, given the slew of factors that influence tree growth, that isolating a single variable on a 1yr resolution using a tree ring proxy is extremely difficult. I would never attempt to do it myself.

Tree ring spacing is influenced by precipitation, temperature variation on multiple timescales , sunshine hours, wind speed/transevaporation rates, etc, and varies with different tree species. There are a lot of factors that need to be accounted for here.

What they're doing is risky and may flaw the entire study should there not be a way of isolating these phenomena and determining their role.

Love this post, keep it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is there's so much contamination potential, given the slew of factors that influence tree growth, that isolating a single variable on a 1yr resolution using a tree ring proxy is extremely difficult. I would never attempt to do it myself.

Tree ring spacing is influenced by precipitation, temperature variation on multiple timescales , sunshine hours, wind speed/transevaporation rates, etc, and varies with different tree species. There are a lot of factors that need to be accounted for here.

What they're doing is risky and may flaw the entire study should there not be a way of isolating these phenomena and determining their role.

 

Then tell me why the tree ring record represents the magnitude of previous CA droughts accurately?

 

And lol @ the bolded .. that's because you don't remotely have the qualifications to do it yourself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then tell me why the tree ring record represents the magnitude of previous CA droughts accurately?

What droughts are you referring to, specifically? The instrumental record is relatively short, so you run into sample-size issues when trying to analyze the proxy-instrument relationship. Interpolating it back in time can be tricky too because antecedent conditions governing tree growth can change.

And lol @ the bolded .. that's because you don't remotely have the qualifications to do it yourself

I'm an A.S student specializing in paleoclimate and seasonal forecasting. I've done tree ring analysis before.

I'm sure you could manage it. Interpreting tree rings doesn't require an advanced degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-lower-u-s-living-standards-1442876463?cb=logged0.5477160925243651

 

Robert Bryce

 

 

Sept. 21, 2015 7:01 p.m. ET

California Gov. Jerry Brownhas a vision: When it comes to greenhouse-gas emissions, he wants his fellow Californians to emulate North Koreans. Meanwhile, many of Mr. Brown’s fellow Democrats—including President Obama,Hillary Clintonand Bernie Sanders—will settle for putting Americans on a par with residents of Mexico.

That’s the essence of the climate-change agenda of America’s most prominent Democrats. They have pledged to cut carbon-dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050, (aka 80 by 50). Their plan will take those emissions to levels that are common today in countries far poorer than the U.S.

Earlier this month, by a margin of two votes, the California Assembly rejected SB 32, a bill that would have required the state to achieve 80 by 50. Pushing this bill was the state’s Democratic leadership, including Gov. Brown, Senate President Kevin de León, and the state’s U.S. senators, Barbara Boxerand Dianne Feinstein.President Obama has repeatedly endorsed 80 by 50. In early 2009, he said he was setting “a goal for our nation that we will reduce our carbon pollution by more than 80 percent by 2050.”

With the exception of Virginia’s former Sen. Jim Webb,all of the candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for president have called for 80 by 50. Mrs. Clinton endorsed 80 by 50 during her first run for the White House. In 2013, Mr. Sanders joined Ms. Boxer to introduce an 80-by-50 bill. In 2014, Martin O’Malleyissued an executive order while governor of Maryland endorsing 80 by 50.

All of this overlooks an essential question: What would 80 by 50 mean for individuals? According to the International Energy Agency, the world per capita average for carbon-dioxide emissions is 4.51 tons a year. Residents of California are responsible for the emission of about twice that amount, 9.42 tons a year. Assuming that the state population doesn’t increase, an 80% cut means the average Californian would be emitting 1.88 tons by 2050.

In other words, those future Californians will be asked to emit less carbon dioxide than do current residents of North Korea. In 2012, according to the IEA, the average North Korean was responsible for 1.83 tons of carbon dioxide. Per capita GDP in North Korea: $1,800 a year.

Achieving 80 by 50 on a national basis will be similarly painful. In 2012 per capita carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. totaled 16.15 tons. Achieving 80 by 50 would mean each resident of the U.S.—where per capita GDP is $54,600 a year—would emit 3.23 tons annually. That’s less than Mexicans, who emit 3.72 tons and have a per capita GDP of about $10,400 a year.

How might 80 by 50 work? Wind and solar energy can’t do the trick. Even ignoring their gargantuan land-use requirements, their incurable intermittence, and the fact that we can’t store large quantities of electricity, those two forms of energy production cannot provide the enormous amounts of energy we need at prices we can afford. James Hansen,one of America’s highest-profile climate scientists, has made that point, saying that “renewable energies are grossly inadequate for our energy needs now and in the foreseeable future.”

Nuclear energy is doing more to cut carbon-dioxide emissions than any other form of energy, but Democratic politicians and their allies at Greenpeace and the Sierra Club refuse to even mention it. A recent Gallup poll found that only 24% of Democratic voters support nuclear energy.

What would 80 by 50 cost? None of the Democrats has provided a cost estimate, but we can get an idea by looking at Germany, which has set a goal of getting 80% of its energy from renewables by 2050.

Germany has already spent $100 billion on subsidies for renewables and its environment minister, Peter Altmaier, has estimated that hitting its 80 by 50 target will require spending another $1.3 trillion over the next two decades. The U.S. economy is four times as large as Germany’s, and U.S. energy consumption is seven times as large. Reaching 80 by 50 in the U.S. would likely cost more than $5 trillion. For reference, the cost of ObamaCare over the next decade is projected at $1.2 trillion.

In short, America’s highest-profile Democrats, including the leading contenders for the White House, have endorsed a climate agenda that will cost far more than ObamaCare. Yet not one of them or their green allies have provided a credible plan—meaning one that doesn’t include lots of nuclear energy—for achieving such draconian reductions without wrecking the economy. These Democrats can’t provide a scenario for achieving 80 by 50—a plan that is affordable and technically viable—for a simple reason: Such a scenario doesn’t exist.

Mr. Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, is the author of “Smaller Faster Lighter Denser Cheaper: How Innovation Keeps Proving the Catastrophists Wrong” (PublicAffairs, 2014).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the WSJ isn't doesn't exactly have a good rep. when it comes to discussions on climate change, I think they have a strong point with here with nuclear. The math doesn't realistically work without it. Even James Hansen has been strongly advocating a nuclear path for some time now for the same reason.

 

We're cruising to blow easily past the 2C/450 ppm "guardrail" pretty quickly with the way things have been going. I'm not holding out a lot of hope for Paris, but it really does seem like it's the last chance to do anything meaningful in time. Otherwise, we're going to be stuck with ineffectual patchwork deals that don't have enough teeth to get the job done in a timely fashion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the WSJ isn't doesn't exactly have a good rep. when it comes to discussions on climate change, I think they have a strong point with here with nuclear. The math doesn't realistically work without it. Even James Hansen has been strongly advocating a nuclear path for some time now for the same reason.

 

We're cruising to blow easily past the 2C/450 ppm "guardrail" pretty quickly with the way things have been going. I'm not holding out a lot of hope for Paris, but it really does seem like it's the last chance to do anything meaningful in time. Otherwise, we're going to be stuck with ineffectual patchwork deals that don't have enough teeth to get the job done in a timely fashion.

 

 

It's no secret Hansen has been a huge advocate of nuclear energy for a while now. It definitely makes the most sense for curbing emissions quickly without a huge economic impact and/or structural issues within the power grid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What droughts are you referring to, specifically? The instrumental record is relatively short, so you run into sample-size issues when trying to analyze the proxy-instrument relationship. Interpolating it back in time can be tricky too because antecedent conditions governing tree growth can change.

I'm an A.S student specializing in paleoclimate and seasonal forecasting. I've done tree ring analysis before.

I'm sure you could manage it. Interpreting tree rings doesn't require an advanced degree.

 

As I already said, the tree rings perfectly represented the magnitude of the droughts of 1934 and 1977. It is reasonable to assume that they would represent earlier droughts as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's no secret Hansen has been a huge advocate of nuclear energy for a while now. It definitely makes the most sense for curbing emissions quickly without a huge economic impact and/or structural issues within the power grid.

 

 

A few years back I had cocktails with a group of GE Engineers who were working on their future energy demands/needs projections.  They stated unequivocally that nukes were the only economically feasible way to meet ongoing energy needs in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate Change Superstorm Redux? Joaquin Shows Some Eerie Similarities to Sandy in Forecast.

 

 

 

A freakish ‘Storms of My Grandchildren‘ type cool pool dominates the northern Atlantic. The backed-up Gulf Stream off the US East Coast is super hot (1-6 degrees Celsius above average). A massive trough is digging in — telegraphing from Norway through Iceland on to Southern Greenland, extending yet southwest over Newfoundland and the Northeastern and Mid Atlantic US. Further south, a developing Hurricane Joaquin over the Bahamas is about to shake hands with this massive trough. Just south of Newfoundland, a blocking high pressure system appears ready to bar Joaquin’s passage to the north and east. Setting up the potential for Joaquin to embed in the trough, to develop a rapidly expanding wind field even as it strengthens, and to possibly make a sickening left turn into the US East Coast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since it missed the US, and is following the typical path of hurricanes the past thousands of years, I guess you'd agree that climate change took a break on Joaquin??  I mean, if Sandy is "evidence" of CC, then Joaquin is the "anti evidence". 

 

Your above crap was written based on long range weather models......lol!!!  That, in and of itself, is evidence/proof of confirmation bias at it's best!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since it missed the US, and is following the typical path of hurricanes the past thousands of years, I guess you'd agree that climate change took a break on Joaquin??  I mean, if Sandy is "evidence" of CC, then Joaquin is the "anti evidence". 

 

Your above crap was written based on long range weather models......lol!!!  That, in and of itself, is evidence/proof of confirmation bias at it's best!!!

 

:clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Digressing as usual. Hurricane J is not missing the United States in a typical fashion, being pushed by a ULL and surrounded by record high pressure due to the Atlantic flipping to the Hansen mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Digressing as usual. Hurricane J is not missing the United States in a typical fashion, being pushed by a ULL and surrounded by record high pressure due to the Atlantic flipping to the Hansen mode.

LMAO...does your mind stay in fantasy land?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LMAO...does your mind stay in fantasy land?

 

LMAO...does your mind stay in fantasy land?

How much do they pay you to downplay everything? Longest fetch of easterly winds on record locally, about 14 days.

 

We know there was potential for a EC landfall and blocking highs everywhere. The TC simply pumped the ridge too much and moved SW. Timing was literally off by 6 hours. Next time we won't be this lucky.

 

Wasn't even worth it. The system was immensely damaging to area beaches/communities thru moderate coastal flooding due to the pressure gradient. It was actually more impactful than Irene locally. Winds were on par with Irene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if Joaquin would've made landfall in, say, the Carolinas as many models had been suggesting at one point or another, how unusual would that have been? Northwestward moving storms into the Gulf coast/Southeast seem pretty routine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if Joaquin would've made landfall in, say, the Carolinas as many models had been suggesting at one point or another, how unusual would that have been? Northwestward moving storms into the Gulf coast/Southeast seem pretty routine.

The hooking nature of the ULL and also the deep meridional dig towards the gulf . Most systems hitting the SE on a W heading are steered by the Bermuda High. I suspect there will be more proving grounds ahead and people will finally wake up to alterations in TC genesis and tracks caused by AGW. (Such as the hurricane drought in Florida)

 

Furthermore, the NAR has been displaced anomalously around 60N. We are still early in the processes but eventually the EC/NE will be wide open for TC landfalls from the east and other nastiness that will exacerbate the effects of SLR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much do they pay you to downplay everything? Longest fetch of easterly winds on record locally, about 14 days.

 

We know there was potential for a EC landfall and blocking highs everywhere. The TC simply pumped the ridge too much and moved SW. Timing was literally off by 6 hours. Next time we won't be this lucky.

 

Wasn't even worth it. The system was immensely damaging to area beaches/communities thru moderate coastal flooding due to the pressure gradient. It was actually more impactful than Irene locally. Winds were on par with Irene.

 

 

:facepalm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate this el nino event, it's going to mask the fact that large percentages of surface warming in 2015 are from AGW forcing. People will go about their lives untill the next la nina or el nino, vicious cycle continues as we stairstep into the abyss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have one alarmist praying for el Nino to "shock the world" with a new record and another alarmist praying it away to remove the excuse for higher temps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The significant part of the jump in temps is actually due to large amounts of ice freezing. There is all the latent heat release during the freezing process.

What a load of BS. This is due to arctic amplification and a continuation of AGW/El Nino. So everything that is not in your favor is just latent heat and the sun?

 

I was right about you all along, your not an objective moderator altho you fooled me a few times too many. Even if it's true, why is the latent heat release higher than usual?

 

In hindsight, we see the same thing just for different reasons. As nflwxman pointed out, it's a direct result of losing so much ice which is an AGW driven phenomenon predominantly (greater than 50%).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a load of BS. This is due to arctic amplification and a continuation of AGW/El Nino. So everything that is not in your favor is just latent heat and the sun?

 

I was right about you all along, your not an objective moderator altho you fooled me a few times too many. Even if it's true, why is the latent heat release higher than usual?

 

In hindsight, we see the same thing just for different reasons. As nflwxman pointed out, it's a direct result of losing so much ice which is an AGW driven phenomenon predominantly (greater than 50%).

You are so dense it is comical!!! :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.