SkepticLance

iNow I have done exactly what you have done many times. I have quoted an expert in the field, and shown his ideas and conclusions. I hope his interview is published soon so that you can read it. Dr. Smith believes that GCMs are not, as you put it - incredibly powerful and accurate. Instead, he cautions taking their conclusions too literally, since they are flawed in many ways. And Dr. Smith is a far greater authority on this subject than you or I. Which I admit may, or may not, mean he is right. The point is, however, that GCM's are not universally regarded as the climate equivalent to holy scripture - not to be questioned on pain of blasphemy inquisition. They are incomplete, and imperfect, and wide open to question and to criticism.

Sayonara I think the word is 'disagree', rather than misinform. I have argued before, and I absolutely believe that aliens presense on Earth, if at all significant, would have to leave traces. If aliens had visited, taken a quick look, and departed, they might leave no trace. However, if they colonised, there is no way they could fail to leave traces. If pre-Cambrian jellyfish leave fossils, which they do, an alien colony would leave traces. If you, or anyone else, wishes to disagree with me, that is fine. I am not going to convince anyone else to believe my logic if they are committed to an alternative idea.

Well done Mr Skeptic. Your opinion so fluently expressed reflects a truly rational approach to the issue. There was an interview in the 6 December issue of New Scientist. This does not appear to be on the internet just yet, but should appear within a couple of weeks. Search under "New Scientist"+"Lenny Smith". Dr. Lenny Smith is Professor of Statistics at London School of Economics, and works with global climate models. He is quite sceptical about the accuracy of those models. I will quote his statements in the New Scientist interview. The following are comments directed at the GCM's. " The temptation to interpret model noise as forecast information invades our living rooms every night. ......."the details we see on TV weather forecasts are noise from the models. I think we are having exactly the same problem with climate projections."........"they cannot give us trustworthy forecasts of climate for regions as small as most countries are." As to why the models go wrong... "You may not have the right initial conditions to start your forecast; you may not know the right equations; or you may not have the computing power to use these equations For obvious reasons, I cannot quote the entire interview,, but, I hope you will all get to read it when it hits the internet. Dr. Smith feels that computer models are a work in progress, useful in a limited way, but generally over-hyped and over-trusted. I tend to agree. An earlier paper by Dr. Smith and colleagues is at : http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/n471534w71q29k04/ I quote from the abstract. "We argue for a reassessment of the role of such models when used for this purpose and a reconsideration of strategies for model development and experimental design. Building on more generic work, we categorize sources of uncertainty as they relate to this specific problem and discuss experimental strategies available for their quantification. Complex climate models, as predictive tools for many variables and scales, cannot be meaningfully calibrated because they are simulating a never before experienced state of the system; the problem is one of extrapolation. It is therefore inappropriate to apply any of the currently available generic techniques which utilize observations to calibrate or weight models to produce forecast probabilities for the real world. To do so is misleading to the users of climate science in wider society." I have no doubt that iNow, swansont and their debate supporters will be able to find alternative references that contradict this, and say that models are wonderful. This is a reflection of the fact that there is not complete agreement on this topic, and the whole global warming modelling scene is highly politicised, and Mr. Skeptic is right to be sceptical.

Sayonara As hapens quite often in these debates, we kind of agreed to disagree.

To sayonara Re predictions of future warming. The world is warming, and will continue to do so until something changes. That is a fairly reliable prediction. I accept the need to make changes. I do not accept the need for idiotic and panicky responses due to a perceived need for rapid change. I do not think this will happen, mostly, though some things that have already happened are undesirable. The rather badly thought out Kyoto Protocol has led to actions that are undesirable - such as the development of a biofuel industry that destroys rainforests, and cuts food supplies. There are a number of other actions under way that are far more desirable - such as research into electric vehicles, new generation nuclear power, development of new agricultural techniques, a reluctance to destroy forests, and a trend to planting more, and so on. Long may these trends continue, and let's not go down the road of actions that are destructive of human welfare, in response to a false perception of urgency.

iNow Accurate communication is always a problem. This applies not just to me, but also to pretty much everyone who posts on this, or any other medium of communication. I have seen literally dozens of cases where it happens. Often we get people accusing others of 'straw man' arguments, which mostly are just miscommunications. I agree that history often leads people into misreading messages. This is normal and human. However, a good scientist makes an effort to avoid such errors. That makes it even more important to read posts carefully.

swansont That is not totally correct. At least half the insults I receive come from the fact that the insulter fails to read my posts carefully, and jumps to conclusions. I then get attacked for an imaginary argument.

bascule You need to re-read what I wrote. Your comments are quite misplaced, since they are based on complete lack of understanding of my post. When I ask a question, I expect an attempt at an answer rather than criticism for a perceived argument that is not actually there. And sayonara. There is a very big difference between distrusting a prediction and disbelieving a long term trend. I take great note of long term trends, as long as they are in the past, and recorded as good data. A predicted trend is something else. Mostly, (with a few exceptions where all details of the relevent science are known) predictions are unreliable. And the further into the future the prediction goes, the more unreliable it becomes.

To culvers It is worse than you think. I am a global warming skeptic, but I do not dispute the basic science behind global warming. The world has been warming at an unprecedented rate since 1976, and there is no available explanation apart from human released greenhouse gases. I accept this. However, I am sceptical of some of the other aspects of global warming dogma such as the accuracy of computer models and the disaster scenarios that are often woven. I believe that global warming is a 'slow' process and we have 50 years to get things right. These minor variations from global warming dogma are enough to get me reviled and insulted on this forum, with ad hom attacks and gratuitous insults. So culvers, if you and chase continue to deny global warming, you can expect that attacks will get worse. And they will not be against your debating position. Given time, you can expect outright insults and personal attacks. I do not agree with your position, but I think you have the right to express it (even though you are wrong) without others having a go at you. Sadly, emotions get in the way. Good scientific debate gets lost. And the insults start flying.

To lancelot The fossil record and the large number of prehuman fossils, showing a slow transition from small brain to large brain, makes the alien intervention theory seem unlikely. It is certainly pointless. No need for it to understand simple evolution. To tomc As to the likelihood of an alien species 'stumbling' across Earth - it is not a vague possibility. For an actively expanding civilisation, and given sufficient time, it is a certainty. The speed of light is absolute, and an advanced alien species would probably cross between star systems at a large fraction that that speed - perhaps 0.1c. (this figure is based on a Scientific American article written by a couple of NASA scientists). To travel from Earth to the opposite side of the galaxy at 0.1 c by the most direct route would take 700,000 years. How long would it take an alien species to explore and colonise the entire galaxy? Assuming a population that doubles in size each 100 years (minimal by human standards) and can travel between stars at 0.1 c, then depending on various assumptions, it would take somewhere between 1 and 10 million years. This is a mere eyeblink in evolutionary or geological time. If the galaxy had spawned even one advanced alien culture that was able to survive and grow for a few million years, and if this had happened some time in the past 100 million years, the aliens would already be here.

OK, the data in the recent graphs suggest that the surface sea temperature is greater than the 0.03 to 0.1 C my original google search came up with. It looks like good data, so I accept that. Still leaves me with a question. How is it that, with an air temperature increase in the tropics of less than 0.5 C over 35 years, we get a water temperature increase of the same? If global warming is the mechanism, then air temperature will rise till the heat energy gets transferred to the sea, causing a water temperature increase, but with a big time delay. Air to water heat flow always leads to water at a lower temperature than air, unless dealing with small quantities and longer time periods, allowing thermal equilibrium. Of course, if the air is at a cooler temperature, such as in winter, heat flow goes the opposite way, which would not be the case with global warming.

The graphs iNow and swansont posted do suggest more than 0.1C, but still significantly less than 0.5 C rise in surface sea temperature. The literature is pretty much mixed on this. I have seen and referenced several articles that suggested 0.06 and 0.1 Celsius rises in 40 years. If the sea temperature rise is between 0.1 and 0.5 C as in those graphs, that helps to explain increases in hurricane intensity, if that is correct. It still seems that there is a lot of disagreement among climate scientists on this one. Atlantic hurricane intensity has increased, but globally? It appears not be to be significant. Quoting from Swansont's reference. "Conclusion So who's right? Given the uncertainties in estimating tropical cyclone intensity presented by Drs. Gray, Landsea, and Knaff, plus the very large disagreement with the theory of hurricane intensification, it is unlikely that the large 80% increase in Category 4 and 5 hurricanes found by Webster et al. is real. There does appear to be some increase, but it is likely much smaller. Many troubling questions need to be answered, such as why comparison of the most recent ten years (1995-2004) with the previous ten years (1985-1994) shows almost no increase in Category 4 and 5 storms globally, during a period when a substantial increase in SST occurred."

To iNow Your post 64 is more like it. When you concentrate on the science and avoid the negative comments, it makes the thread a much more pleasant one to be part of. I made an error with my 28 C in that I meant to say 28 Celsius is the threshold for serious hurricanes, not just hurricanes in general. I think we all agree that surface sea temperatures are increasing, though there seems to be a great deal of uncertainty as to exactly how much. Certainly a hell of a lot less than air temperature. In theory, this can lead to more severe storms. However, the climate scientists who publish on this topic do not seem to be in agreement, and there seems to be a lot of interpretation required. Your reference shows an increase in intensity of hurricanes through to about 1994 and a drop afterwards. This drop may explain why so many climate scientists are dubious about ascribing a direct relationship between hurricane intensity and global warming. Some time ago, I read a statement to the effect that recent variation is within long term statistical error assuming normal variation in hurricane frequency and intensity. This seems to be the case. Certainly the various reports fail to come to any clear and definitive conclusion relating global warming to hurricane intensity.

To iNow I understand your explanation. Sadly, it is a bit too simplistic. As I understand it, a hurricane can form when certain weather conditions prevail, and there is a suitable patch of ocean of minimum temperature 28 C down to a depth of about 100 metres. It is the patchy nature of the situation that makes your explanation simplistic. Ocean temperature on a local scale, just like air temperature locally, varies quite substantially. A minor increase in average ocean temperature may push the odd patch over the threshold, but as a percentage of all warm patches that might potentially be hurricane forming, the fraction that such a tiny warming could push over the threshold would be tiny. I seriously doubt it would be measurable. Remember, we are talking an average warming of 0.1 C at most, compared to a 'random' temperature variation at least 30 times as great.

Swansont Re the Time article and your explanation for the reference to 0.5 C warming. I am sorry, but it makes little sense to me. The warming of the oceans from global climate change is indirect. That is : the initial warming is of the atmosphere, and some of its heat energy is passed on to the ocean to warm it. Thermal lag means the sea will always warm up much more slowly than the air via this mechanism. The average atmospheric warming over the past 40 years is 0.5 C. And most of that is found in the Arctic regions. The least warming is in the tropics. That means that air warming in the tropics over the past 40 years is less than 0.5 C. Yet you are telling me that the oceans in the tropics warmed by 0.5 C. Unless there is a different mechanism at work, such as vulcanism, this seems a little unlikely. It is far more likely to me that a Time writer was a little careless and wrote 0.5 C when it should have been 0.05 C. This is not a very unusual slip up.

Interesting. I have just been reading the other global warming thread, in which chase. the confused wood elf, is spouting a load of global warming denier garbage. Yet iNow is treating him with patience and refraining from insults. I am not a global warming denier - just a questioner of the less likely aspects of current global warming dogma, and I get the insults. The only interpretation is that, when iNow et al cannot find the data or good science to shoot me down, they revert to ad hom and gratuitous insults. On this thread it is even more strange, since, apart from a couple of comments I have, till yesterday, restricted myself to questions.

iNow I have tried hard to rediscover my source for 1 C = 5% wind speed increase. I read it some days ago while browsing google for info on this topic, and I was silly enough not to save the reference. I have come across a whole lot of similar statements while googling further, but nothing exactly the same. Sorry. Bascule and iNow always give me a hard time. Mostly I forgive them. I challenge those who have fixed opinions, and people who take things on faith tend to resent those who challenge that faith. I do not know if they are capable of seeing this, but people who respond to a query by quoting an authority, and his opinion, but with no data to support that opinion, are often barking up a very non scientific tree. There is no doubt that certain people resent my input, and the reason for that resentment is that they hate having their preconceptions and prejudices queried. However, such queries are healthy. Now and again, someone is open enough to actually accept that it is good to be forced to look at the hard facts behind their system of beliefs. The more narrow minded a person is, the more they will hit out against those who question their narrow minded beliefs. In my case, it is worse, since I present data instead of dogma. That is very hard for those fixated on their own pseudoreligion to accept.

bascule Go wash your mouth out with soap and water. That is as bad an ad hom attack and gratuitous insult as can be delivered. It is quite reprehensible and totally beneath you.

iNow Why don't you go back over this thread and re-read my posts. I have not been arguing. I have been asking questions. Your reference has suggested a threshold of 26.5C surface sea temperature for any hurricane to develop and 28.3 C for any serious hurricane. Normal sea temperature variability runs over 5 to 10 Celsius summer to winter. Do you think that an average surface sea temperature increase of 0.1C or less over 40 years is going to have a significant effect on frequency of serious hurricanes?

iNow I think you may be arguing against something I did not say. I asked the question : How can anthropogenic increases in sea temperature lead to increased hurricane intensity when the increase in temperature is so trivial? When we check scientific opinion, we see it is divided. Some say that there is no recent statistically significant change in hurricane frequency or intensity. Some say there has been an increase in intensity. However, that is not my question. If the temperature increase is less than 0.1 C, and it takes ten times that to give an increase in wind speed of 5%, then how is the increase in intensity supposed to have happened? Surely, any effect would be so minimal as to be unmeasurable? And an increase of 0.1 C is not really terribly likely to be sufficient to push anything over a threshold. Normal variability in surface sea temperature is many times that. The noise is massively greater than the signal in this case.

iNow The Time magazine error was the 0.5 C increase in sea temperature. Let's not get off track here. The air temperature in 40 years increased 0.5 C. Sea temperature ALWAYS lags way behind air temperature. It is called thermal lag. It is physically impossible for the air to warm 0.5 C and have the sea warm the same degree in 40 years. I have read three other references. They gave ocean warming at 0.03 C, 0.06C and 0.1 C - and the discrepancy is explained by the different time periods being discussed. 0.5 C is ridiculous, and if you think about it for a while you will agree.

iNow Obviously reports of sea water temperature rise vary. I am not sure that Time magazine can be called the ultimate authority, though. I have seen various estimates, ranging from 0.03 C to your 0.5 C from the Time article. Here is another : http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/sea-temperature.html "Sea temperature is rising and the oceans are warming. Over the period 1961 to 2003, global ocean temperature has risen by 0.10°C from the surface to a depth of 700 m." This is closer to my original reference estimate of 0.06C. I find myself seriously doubting the Time magazine estimate. So why the discrepancy? I hate to have to tell you this, iNow, but you are quoting an error. Over the last 40 years, global average air temperature has risen 0.5 C. Even the most basic understanding of the science will tell you that sea temperature ALWAYS rises more slowly than air temperature. I live by the sea and scuba dive summer and winter. I record sea temperature. The maximum air temperature change seasonally is nearly 30 Celsius. The maximum sea temperature change, at least below the top 2 metres, is 7 Celsius. For Time magazine to suggest sea temperatures will rise by 0.5 C while air temperatures rise by exactly the same amount will tell anyone with even small scientific understanding, that Time made a mistake. I would suspect that the author slipped a decimal point, and it should have been 0.05 C.

To foodchain In my own opinion, one of the really bad but frequent myths surrounding global warming issues is the belief that localised short term heat waves or cold snaps can be blamed on global warming. The highest air temperature due to climatic effect ever recorded was in the desert of Libya in the year 1911, when it came close to 60 Celsius. This was the second coldest year of the 20th Century!

Swansont Temporary cerebral short circuit. I meant to address Sayonara. My apologies.

Swansont I may not have been clear enough in my query. Sorry. My main concern is to ask why such a small change in sea temperature is supposed to have caused an increase in hurricane frequency/intensity. iNow Can I ask you a favour? If you answer a query with a reference, could you please post a quote from that reference showing the relevent bit. Some references are very long, and I really don't want to have to read all of them to find a statement to answer my query. I am sure that other people will appreciate this also.