the first time in history that four named storms have formed before July 1

[cmc0605]

Most of the skeptic debate lies within this realm of uncertainty. Many very inconsiderate people on here view a "skeptic" as a "denier" and then actual people who deny global warming at all on any level get into heated debate with these people and it derails most threads and then a bunch of relatively irrelevant tangential points are argued.

The real debate lies with Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming versus the less threatening Anthropogenic Global Warming, but since the two have often been meshed together, it kind of turns into an "AGW vs nothing" debate which isn't where most of the debate lies in the first place in peer reviewed science.

I am a skeptic of the former, not the latter. I believe AGW exists, but not on the catastrophic scale that a lot of the IPCC scientists believe. There is more and more peer reviewed literature that comes out now that supports that thinking which is why the debate has heated up since 2005, but it is still in the minority amongst all peer reviewed literature. These types of threads are usually what often cause the problems and this occurs on both sides of the spectrum.

Perhaps the real problem is attacking phantom theories with made-up definitions. This is not the "real debate." The word "catastrophic" is not a scientific term, and is not an inherent property of climate change, either in the IPCC reports, or in any other form of mainstream science. By its very construction, the term is not up for debate, only disagreement.

If you wanted to say an asteroid impact or nuclear winter would not be catastrophic since life would continue on over the course of millions of years anyway, I'd disagree with your philosophical stance, but I would not call you "wrong."

In any case, I don't think you pay much attention to the blogosphere (which is probably a good thing), particularly here, or in other popular skeptic venues like WUWT. You will find that "most of the skeptic debate" is not even in the same league with what most scientists argue about, such as the details of a particular parametrization on the rate at which ice falls through a cloud, or the specifics that govern the way that gravity waves are formed as air interacts with surface features like mountains. The "criticisms" on blogs are on the level of "THEY USED A MODEL!!!! It's worthless!"

I put criticisms in quotes because these are not scientific criticisms; they are pointless jabs that reflect upon the intellectual bankruptcy of the people using them. Even here, people continue to distort science in order to make claims that Texas temperature trends show that the AGW alarmist science is debunked because of urban heat island, or that cosmic rays must be causing global warming, or that global warming stopped in [insert date here]. The laundry list of one-liners are akin to creationist argument styles (like all these). Support for these arguments often comes from blogs, and occasionally from the far outlying fringes of the refereed literature, with no mention of why people don't believe that paper.

[ORH_wxman]

Perhaps the real problem is attacking phantom theories with made-up definitions. This is not the "real debate." The word "catastrophic" is not a scientific term, and is not an inherent property of climate change, either in the IPCC reports, or in any other form of mainstream science. By its very construction, the term is not up for debate, only disagreement.

If you wanted to say an asteroid impact or nuclear winter would not be catastrophic since life would continue on over the course of millions of years anyway, I'd disagree with your philosophical stance, but I would not call you "wrong."

In any case, I don't think you pay much attention to the blogosphere (which is probably a good thing), particularly here, or in other popular skeptic venues like WUWT. You will find that "most of the skeptic debate" is not even in the same league with what most scientists argue about, such as the details of a particular parametrization on the rate at which ice falls through a cloud, or the specifics that govern the way that gravity waves are formed as air interacts with surface features like mountains. The "criticisms" on blogs are on the level of "THEY USED A MODEL!!!! It's worthless!"

I put criticisms in quotes because these are not scientific criticisms; they are pointless jabs that reflect upon the intellectual bankruptcy of the people using them. Even here, people continue to distort science in order to make claims that Texas temperature trends show that the AGW alarmist science is debunked because of urban heat island, or that cosmic rays must be causing global warming, or that global warming stopped in [insert date here]. The laundry list of one-liners are akin to creationist argument styles. Support for these arguments often comes from blogs, and occasionally from the far outlying fringes of the refereed literature, with no mention of why people don't believe that paper.

I think you are attributing too much credit to the extremes on each side of the debate with this post. I do read many of the blogospheres...and they are filled with extremes on each side, but most of the real debate lies in the middle. A lot of the other stuff is just irrelevant talking points and strawmen.

I will define what "Catastrophic" is...it's the IPCC's AR4 assessment. I do not agree with it. I do not agree with their AR4 models either which have almost no chance of verifying at least through 2030...if we see a massive ramp up in global temperature increase, then they might be right by 2050 or 2060.

Much of the "debate" you refer to lies outside of the realm of peer review science on both sides. As the whole issue becomes more and more politicized, I expect this will continue to be the case.

[cmc0605]

I think you are attributing too much credit to the extremes on each side of the debate with this post. I do read many of the blogospheres...and they are filled with extremes on each side, but most of the real debate lies in the middle. A lot of the other stuff is just irrelevant talking points and strawmen.

I will define what "Catastrophic" is...it's the IPCC's AR4 assessment. I do not agree with it. I do not agree with their AR4 models either which have almost no chance of verifying at least through 2030...if we see a massive ramp up in global temperature increase, then they might be right by 2050 or 2060.

Much of the "debate" you refer to lies outside of the realm of peer review science on both sides. As the whole issue becomes more and more politicized, I expect this will continue to be the case.

Thanks for your opinion, but to be frank, your disagreement is pretty meaningless. That ~1,000 page assessment report with thousands of references is the definition of "catastrophic?" You haven't even looked at the report, and it's reflected in your language ("their AR4 models...", what exactly is "it" that you disagree with? A particular projection? A particular claim? Every sentence in the report?).

Try spending a few days looking at the report then get back (reading what people say about the report does not count). I promise it does take effort, but I also promise it is infinitely more rewarding for your education than wherever you are picking up your info from. Actually, you will find that in many cases they underestimate problems (Arctic sea ice loss, not taking into account dynamic effects associated with ice sheet loss in sea level projections, etc), some of which has changed in the AR5, others more "conservative" (as in the hurricane example above)...but you'd know that if you followed the science rather than talking points.

[ORH_wxman]

Thanks for your opinion, but to be frank, your disagreement is pretty meaningless. That ~1,000 page assessment report with thousands of references is the definition of "catastrophic?" You haven't even looked at the report, and it's reflected in your language ("their AR4 models..."). Try spending a few days looking at the report then get back to me (reading what people say about the report does not count). Actually, you will find that in many cases they underestimate problems (Arctic sea ice loss, not taking into account dynamic effects associated with ice sheet loss in sea level projections, etc), some of which has changed in the AR5, others more "conservative" (as in the hurricane example above)...but you'd know that if you followed the science rather than talking points.

You are right, my opinion is meaningless...so is theirs if their models are no good. You can point to arctic sea ice, but I can point to their sea level rise, global temperature, glaciers, and hurricanes. I have read their AR4 report.

If the world is not actually doing what they say it will, I will reman a skeptic which is what science is about whether you are a believer or not. You can dismiss an opinion or not, but their predicted results are there for all of us to see. They predict 3.6C of warming from 1980-1999 average temps in their continuation of emmissions scenario by 2100 and so far we have seen 0.09C of warming since the end of 1999/beginning of 2000 if you use the most robust dataset for surface temperature increase which is GISS. That is 12 years of 0.076C per decade.

Maybe you have faith that it will end up closer to the 3.6C like they say, but I do not. You are certainly free to your opinion as I am mine...that is the beauty of science. I have little faith to their lower bound of 1.8C average....though their range for that scenario is 1.1-2.9 and I can believe the lower bound of that average scenario. However, that would include a dramatic reduction in CO2 since that is their B1 scenario characterized by "Reductions in material intensity and the introduction of clean and resource efficient technologies.".

[cmc0605]

This is actually a bit insane.

Let's follow through here. You originally said you disagree with "the IPCC report," as if this inherently means something to me.

You are now reducing that entire ~1000 page report (just the first working group) to a handful of projections, even though most of the report has nothing to do with projections. You feel those projections are wrong, even though we obviously don't have data for the future to say that, nor do we even know what kind of socio-economic based emission scenario we will end up following.

This is all supplemented with misunderstandings of the projections themselves...no mention of scenario, no caveats, no uncertainties, and also confusing short-term variability with longer term trend (hint: a projection, of say, 0.2 C/decade does not mean every decade warms by 0.2 C).

But you can't even get the comparisons that we do have available correct. Modern obs are still within the realm of the model projections for many variables, including global temp, and are actually underestimated by the AR4 models for a number of other variables (including sea ice, though this is no longer true for some of the CMIP5 generation models which are in better agreement. As another case, most post-AR4 studies now have enhanced rates of sea level rise in the future compared to AR4, so this may be something AR4 underestimated as well).

Even more worrisome is the simplicity of your argument. There are dozens upon dozens of variables you can come up with that characterize our atmosphere....those that span atmospheric circulation and dynamics, energy budgets, temperature, hydrological cycle, sea level, regional patterns, cryosphere impacts, carbon cycle projections, droughts, hurricanes, the tracking of oxygen isotopes, etc. There are multiple statistics used to characterize their behavior as well (the mean, the extremes, etc). There are multiple timescales and spatial scales (e.g., projections for the northwest United States, projections for Australia). Moreover, there is no single IPCC model...there are whole range of models from different organizations around the globe.

You're not being specific about what you don't like, but the models aren't getting everything wrong. Indeed, they've already been quite useful in simulating major features of modern climate change well before they were observed (the Pinatubo cooling, stratospheric ccoling, Arctic amplification, etc). Of course, I can assure you they don't get everything right either, in some cases on the low or high end, and in some cases we can't really tell. This doesn't translate into "the IPCC is catastrophic," that there is nothing to worry about, that CO2 doesn't cause global warming, that the skeptics are right, etc. The implications of a model-obs mismatch are always interesting to someone, though without being very specific it's tough to say exactly to whom and how relevant it is. If half of the models aren't getting the precipitation trends in Nebraska right, I wouldn't be surprised (I haven't checked), and that's unfortunate for planners in Nebraska but it really has no bearing on those things that the model is better geared toward answering and which we know is more robust across the ensemble members.

This is all my point. Climate science is not easy and not reducible to a single all-encompassing answer. There will also always be something "wrong" or "uncertain" (as in any field where people still do research) but what that actually means and how that "issue" propagates onto the larger scheme of things is sometimes more important. I realize this complexity is inconvenient to people who want to read a few blog posts and watch some youtube videos and become some insta-expert. Trust me, I wish I could soak up years of eduction and research in just a few days too. But it doesn't work and if you're going to make a point it needs to be a specific one, researched, caveated, etc. and backed up. You're not going to take decades of fundamental science and turn it on its heels overnight on americanwx. Sorry.

[ORH_wxman]

Your entire post is based on assumptions....which is nice in theory...but unfortunately science doesn't work that way to get it verified. You are simplifying everything by first telling me that I'm simplifying everything by posting the global temp increase...which is the basis of their models.

And you are completely wrong when you say they get things like Pinatubo correct without knowing that info...those variables are put into the model retroactively to see if they can handle them. Of course they can handle them when its done retroactively.

The models are only as good as their input...and they are designated a sensitivity to CO2 that has to be assigned by the programmers. There shouldn't be much of a reason why people are wondering why they are failing as soon as the models are predicting beyond their retroactive parameterazations.

[cmc0605]

Your entire post is based on assumptions....which is nice in theory...but unfortunately science doesn't work that way to get it verified. You are simplifying everything by first telling me that I'm simplifying everything by posting the global temp increase...which is the basis of their models.

And you are completely wrong when you say they get things like Pinatubo correct without knowing that info...those variables are put into the model retroactively to see if they can handle them. Of course they can handle them when its done retroactively.

The models are only as good as their input...and they are designated a sensitivity to CO2 that has to be assigned by the programmers. There shouldn't be much of a reason why people are wondering why they are failing as soon as the models are predicting beyond their retroactive parameterazations.

Why speak about things that you don't know about?

No, models cannot predict that a volcanic eruption will happen beforehand. They of course aren't built for this. However, they have predicted the impacts of a volcanic eruption given knowledge about the atmospheric perturbation, including the temperature evolution, recovery time, water vapor response, etc. There are multiple papers on this, by the team at NASA GISS, Brian Soden on some water vapor responses, and others. The models today are even much better than those models.

And "sensitivity" is not imposed on models, nor are many other things that emerge from the model physics (like Isaac Held's post on turbulent eddies). Why would anyone report interesting results if that result was already imposed on a model? Have you ever even looked at a model code? I'm sure you think we're all incompetent, but at least try to think your arguments through. Further, 'global temp' is not the "basis" for a model, though to be sure it is an important property of the climate upon which many other changes are related to, but it's tough to make sense of just what you mean. There's absolutely nothing theoretical about my last reply...you need to know what you're talking about if you want to make a model-obs comparison (indeed, there's a large literature on just how to make a useful comparison) but it also needs to be meaningful... and it actually requires doing the analysis.

This is my last response to you, unless you are willing to give the effort to learn what you talk about before making claims with such confidence.

[ORH_wxman]

You seem to be ill-informed on how GCMs are calibrated.

But I'll pretend you are correct for argumentitive purposes...how come they are so bad post-2000 (when they project into the future versus retroactive) thus far? Do you believe they will be correct by 2030 anyway despite needing monster increase in global temps over the next couple decades to even come close to verifying (low emissions scenario)...I wont even bother you with the current emissions scenario which has zero chance of verifying which already means the AR4 GCMs are wrong.

[ORH_wxman]

I'm supposed to believe that 2030 will have global temperatures 0.31C above 1999-2000 temps when we have warmed 0.09C (generously) by 2012 in a low emissions scenario. I am skeptical of that...but it might happen.

Current emissions (already surpassed by 2012 on what A1B says) would produce 0.60C of warming roughly. Its a complete joke to think that on a practical level.

[ORH_wxman]

I'm supposed to believe that 2030 will have global temperatures 0.31C above 1999-2000 temps when we have warmed 0.09C (generously) by 2012 in a low emissions scenario. I am skeptical of that...but it might happen.

Current emissions (already surpassed by 2012 on what A1B says) would produce 0.60C of warming roughly. Its a complete joke to think that on a practical level.

Actually i was wrong...the first scenario is "only" 0.50-0.60 of warming roughly. The 0.31C warming was if we had stopped CO2 in 2000. The current emissions scenario is about 0.70C of warming and we already higher than their projection of emissions.

[cmc0605]

You seem to be ill-informed on how GCMs are calibrated.

But I'll pretend you are correct for argumentitive purposes...how come they are so bad post-2000 (when they project into the future versus retroactive) thus far? Do you believe they will be correct by 2030 anyway despite needing monster increase in global temps over the next couple decades to even come close to verifying (low emissions scenario)...I wont even bother you with the current emissions scenario which has zero chance of verifying which already means the AR4 GCMs are wrong.

Who are "they" and what specifically are they "bad" at? What does "bad" mean? Give me statistics. Plot the results with uncertainties. Stop being lazy. Some starting points might be this. There is currently not a disagreement between models and obs as it relates to global mean temp, even in the last decade. Also see the Easterling and Wehner paper on this topic, in addition to Foster and Rahmstorf that show you still get a nice upward trend if you account for things like volcanoes, ENSO, etc which (unsurprisingly) impact global temperature.

But in any case, I think you can trust a large literature on this that testing the long-term forced response of a GCM based on a very short time series is not very informative at all. It's quite easy to convince yourself of this if you look at the error bars for trying to tease out info from 10 yrs of data for example.

In any event, as a non-scientific matter, these models have quite clearly evolved to the point where they are useful for providing info to the public concerning the greenhouse response. There are of course uncertainties, but models are meant to provide useful information and skill, which has already been done. There's entire reports devoted to this, so you can claim otherwise all day long, but the fact is that we do have the necessary information to say that global warming is real, it's human-caused, and to gauge the Earth's sensitivity and some of the responses to that change. There are still practical uncertainties remaining, like regional downscaling, but there has been remarkable progress in the evolution of modeling in the last 1-2 decades and the ability for high explanatory power. Whether we do anything about it or call it "catastrophic" is not up to the science.

Anyway, I don't see this conversation going much farther at the current time, so good night...

[ORH_wxman]

Who are "they" and what specifically are they "bad" at? What does "bad" mean? Give me statistics. Plot the results with uncertainties. Stop being lazy. Some starting points might be this. There is currently not a disagreement between models and obs as it relates to global mean temp, even in the last decade. Also see the Easterling and Wehner paper on this topic, in addition to Foster and Rahmstorf that show you still get a nice upward trend if you account for things like volcanoes, ENSO, etc which (unsurprisingly) impact global temperature.

But in any case, I think you can trust a large literature on this that testing the long-term forced response of a GCM based on a very short time series is not very informative at all. It's quite easy to convince yourself of this if you look at the error bars for trying to tease out info from 10 yrs of data for example.

In any event, as a non-scientific matter, these models have quite clearly evolved to the point where they are useful for providing info to the public concerning the greenhouse response. There are of course uncertainties, but models are meant to provide useful information and skill, which has already been done. There's entire reports devoted to this, so you can claim otherwise all day long, but the fact is that we do have the necessary information to say that global warming is real, it's human-caused, and to gauge the Earth's sensitivity and some of the responses to that change. There are still practical uncertainties remaining, like regional downscaling, but there has been remarkable progress in the evolution of modeling in the last 1-2 decades and the ability for high explanatory power. Whether we do anything about it or call it "catastrophic" is not up to the science.

Anyway, I don't see this conversation going much farther at the current time, so good night...

I find it interesting that you accuse me of being lazy when you haven't provided an ounce of statistical info yourself while I was quoting numbers from the IPCC page. It seems to me you are the one being lazy.

The IPCC AR4 numbers are publically available for you:

http://www.ipcc-data.org/data/ar4_multimodel_globalmean_tas.txt

You do not have to convince me that some of the current warming is human caused...yet another tangential argument. I agree. I just do not agree that it will be as bad as these GCMs project. You cannot prove me wrong since we cannot verify them right now...only through 2012 where they fail miserably thus far on the 90% level, but not yet on the 95% level (though close on the last estimate I saw).

You never answered whether you think these models are correct or not in predicting 3.6C of warming from the 1980-1999 mean but I assume your lack of response and attacking me on tangential points means you do believe it, but just do not want to address it and why.

I won't attack you if you think they right, I will simply defend my position on why I think they won't be correct. There is little to no evidence of accelrating warming nor accelerated sea level rise and both of these are in peer reviewed literature. There might be counter arguments too, but they are both in peer review literature that isvery recent.

[CoastalWx]

Hopefully SSTs can warm sooner. It's rather nippy going into the ocean with the Labrador current.

[CoastalWx]

This clearly is of unbelievabie significance because tropical cyclones have been named for .000045% of the history of the existence of the Atlantic Ocean.

I'm sure it never happened between 130 million years BC and 1953.

The way we are going about in naming storms is changing a bit. Technology and our understanding of TCs is aiding this. It will be interesting to hear (if they post it) the NHC presentation on naming of storms.

[ORH_wxman]

The way we are going about in naming storms is changing a bit. Technology and our understanding of TCs is aiding this. It will be interesting to hear (if they post it) the NHC presentation on naming of storms.

The Chris Landsea piece continues to go uncontested. As is par for the course in threads like these.

[cmc0605]

I find it interesting that you accuse me of being lazy when you haven't provided an ounce of statistical info yourself while I was quoting numbers from the IPCC page. It seems to me you are the one being lazy.

The IPCC AR4 numbers are publically available for you:

http://www.ipcc-data...balmean_tas.txt

You do not have to convince me that some of the current warming is human caused...yet another tangential argument. I agree. I just do not agree that it will be as bad as these GCMs project. You cannot prove me wrong since we cannot verify them right now...only through 2012 where they fail miserably thus far on the 90% level, but not yet on the 95% level (though close on the last estimate I saw).

You never answered whether you think these models are correct or not in predicting 3.6C of warming from the 1980-1999 mean but I assume your lack of response and attacking me on tangential points means you do believe it, but just do not want to address it and why.

I won't attack you if you think they right, I will simply defend my position on why I think they won't be correct. There is little to no evidence of accelrating warming nor accelerated sea level rise and both of these are in peer reviewed literature. There might be counter arguments too, but they are both in peer review literature that isvery recent.

I'm not making outlandish claims. You are basing your arguments on a decade or less of steady temps (without even thinking about internal variability or other external forcings), which to be blunt, is too stupid to take seriously.

To answer your question, I think climate sensitivity is in the AR4 range of ~2-4.5 C per equivalent of a 2xCO2 radiative forcing, and this temperature range will be borne out when you consider suitable timeframes (of course the transient response is less than this, in the 1-3 C range). I do not know which emission scenario we will follow, but the a1b estimate for the CMIP5 models is comparable the same 3 C signal by end century (keep in mind people expect aerosols to not increase much anymore, and probably go down). Temperature is expected to rise between ~1.5-3 C by 2100 relative to 1980-1999 following the RCP4.5 to RCP6 scenario. Both of these stabilize under 800 ppm. I do not think this is at all unreasonable, and I am concerned with the long-term tail.

[ORH_wxman]

You are basing your arguments on a decade or less of steady temps, which ti be blunt, is too stupid to take seriously.

To answer your question, I think climate sensitivity is in the AR4 range of ~2-4.5 C per equivalent of a 2xCO2 radiative forcing, and this temperature range will be borne out when you consider suitable (of course the transient response is less than this). I do not know which emission scenario we will follow, but the a1b estimate for the CMIP5 estimate is comparable to 2xCO2 (keep in mind people expect aerosols to not increase much anymore, and go down). Temperature is expected to rise between ~1.5-3 C by 2100 relative to 1980-1999 following the RCP4.5 to RCP6 scenario. Both of these stabilize under 800 ppm. I do not think this is at all unreasonable, and I am concerned with the long-term tail.

Not if it doesn't pass certain statistical tests.

I actually agree with you that 1.5C of warming is possible by 2100, but I find 2-4.5 unrealstic...which is what the IPCC says in AR4. So that is what I am skeptical of. You can call me a denier like many of the other clowns on here who also predict no sea ice by 2015 and/or people who think increased hurricane naming in the Atlantic is actually linked to AGW and not observational efficiency...but please refain from caling me out on relevant numbers and statistics on a dataset that is freely available to the public in the same report you told me I didn't read. It makes it look like you didn't read it and I did and that would be bad for your argument.

[CoastalWx]

The Chris Landsea piece continues to go uncontested. As is par for the course in threads like these.

You're right, unfortunately.

[TerryM]

Not if it doesn't pass certain statistical tests.

I actually agree with you that 1.5C of warming is possible by 2100, but I find 2-4.5 unrealstic...which is what the IPCC says in AR4. So that is what I am skeptical of. You can call me a denier like many of the other clowns on here who also predict no sea ice by 2015 and/or people who think increased hurricane naming in the Atlantic is actually linked to AGW and not observational efficiency...but please refain from caling me out on relevant numbers and statistics on a dataset that is freely available to the public in the same report you told me I didn't read. It makes it look like you didn't read it and I did and that would be bad for your argument.

Are you agreeing to a 1.5C increase relative to 1980-1999 as cmc0605 stated, or are you postulating the likelihood of 1.5C since the industrial era?

Terry

[PhillipS]

The Chris Landsea piece continues to go uncontested. As is par for the course in threads like these.

It's an opinion piece, not a research paper,and while Landsea is entitled to his opinion, last time I checked so is everyone else.

[ORH_wxman]

It's an opinion piece, not a research paper,and while Landsea is entitled to his opinion, last time I checked so is everyone else.

He cites many peer reviewed papers in his piece to back up his opinion and I have yet to see anyone on here refute his claims with good evidence.

[ORH_wxman]

Are you agreeing to a 1.5C increase relative to 1980-1999 as cmc0605 stated, or are you postulating the likelihood of 1.5C since the industrial era?

Terry

I was agreeing that there could be 1.5C of warming this century, but that requires us to average a warming trend of 0.15C per decade and we have gone at half of that trend the first 12 years, which while is not a long sample, is in line with the warming trend since the onset of the industrial era indicating that we are not accelerating the warming. So that number is near the upper bound of what I think is reasonable this century.

My mind could be changed if we all of the sudden start blitzing along at 0.20-0.25C per decade between now and 2030 or 2040. I think the average estimates of 3.6C of warming for this century based on current emissions scenario according to AR4 is well overdone.

[aslkahuna]

One other minor point-NHC has changed their naming protocol. They now name subtropical cyclones as well whereas they didn't before the change in naming. Additionally. most other WMO forecast centers do not as of yet name ST's. After Emmanuel made his comments regarding the 2005 ATL season there were papers presented that pointed that the global dataset on tropical cyclones was in no shape quantitatively or qualitatively to make any assumptions about the effects of Climate Change upon numbers or intensities of storms though later research suggests an overall decrease in numbers with an increase in intensity.

Steve

[TerryM]

Do you think that a global increase of 2.4C since the industrial era, coupled with polar amplification, will have negative effects in the temperate zone?

Terry

[smerby]

What if summertime Northern Arctic Ice melts out by then? Would that be a game changer for you?

Its possible Cyclone. If the ice melts out during the summers of the PDO cooling and subsequent AMO cooling over the next 15-20 years, then I think CO2 is a bigger driver of climate.

Smerby

[cyclonebuster]

Its possible Cyclone. If the ice melts out during the summers of the PDO cooling and subsequent AMO cooling over the next 15-20 years, then I think CO2 is a bigger driver of climate.

Smerby

Suppose someone had an Idea to prevent that from occurring and it placed the warming back to what it was at the beginning of the industrial revolution and the Ice extent returned to those values also.. Would that be a good thing or a bad thing???

[smerby]

Good question Cyclone,

I really don't know how melted Arctic Sea Ice will affect me. If it would have a negative impact on my life, I would be in favor of keeping the ice from melting. If it led to the Greenland Ice sheet rapidly melting causing coastal flooding and a shut down of the thermohaline circulation and a return to an Ice age, I would be favor of keeping the ice from melting. Growing up in the 60s and 70s I lived through some tough winters that put a real burden on my family. Rivers froze one winter and coal barges couldn't reach the power plants so we had no heat in the house in the dead of winter. I though it was fun playing pond hockey at -10F with a barrel fire to stay warm, but my parents did not think that way about wearing blankets in the house to stay warm. I don't think I would want to return to winters like that. I was able to afford my heating bill this past winter and that was a good thing. Its a tough call, there could be both good and bad outcomes.

Smerby

[cyclonebuster]

Good question Cyclone,

I really don't know how melted Arctic Sea Ice will affect me. If it would have a negative impact on my life, I would be in favor of keeping the ice from melting. If it led to the Greenland Ice sheet rapidly melting causing coastal flooding and a shut down of the thermohaline circulation and a return to an Ice age, I would be favor of keeping the ice from melting. Growing up in the 60s and 70s I lived through some tough winters that put a real burden on my family. Rivers froze one winter and coal barges couldn't reach the power plants so we had no heat in the house in the dead of winter. I though it was fun playing pond hockey at -10F with a barrel fire to stay warm, but my parents did not think that way about wearing blankets in the house to stay warm. I don't think I would want to return to winters like that. I was able to afford my heating bill this past winter and that was a good thing. Its a tough call, there could be both good and bad outcomes.

Smerby

With that kind of control of the weather you could also make it somewhere in between those two scenarios.........

[cyclonebuster]

He cites many peer reviewed papers in his piece to back up his opinion and I have yet to see anyone on here refute his claims with good evidence.

It is a potential issue. More heat potential more potential for storms. Look at the 2005 Atlantic season with 31 named storms shattering the 1933 season of 21 named storms in which two years in a row in 2010 and 2011 has tied the 1933 season with 21 named storms, never before has that happened since 1893. You can bet more heat is going to give us more active seasons in the future. Wind shear is just part of the equation. Sooner or later it will wain then all bets are off.

[ORH_wxman]

It is a potential issue. More heat potential more potential for storms. Look at the 2005 Atlantic season with 31 named storms shattering the 1933 season of 21 named storms in which two years in a row in 2010 and 2011 has tied the 1933 season with 21 named storms, never before has that happened since 1893. You can bet more heat is going to give us more active seasons in the future. Wind shear is just part of the equation. Sooner or later it will wain then all bets are off.

How many storms went unnamed in 1933 compared to now? That's the whole point of the discussion. We can detect storms now that we didn't earlier in the period.

Where is their proof that wind shear would "Sooner or later wain and all bets are off?"

Landsea et al 2010 shows the bias in observation of TCs do to insufficient observation tools such as satellite and aircraft, and lack of ship traffic in parts of the Atlantic in the early 20th century.

http://www.aoml.noaa...l-jclim2010.pdf