Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Despite significant efforts and progress, the spatial representation of reconstructions is limited, and the interannual and centennial variation are poorly quantified. Research priorities to reduce reconstruction uncertainties and improve future projections, include (1) increasing the role of expert assessment in selecting and incorporating the highest quality proxy data in reconstructions (2) employing reconstruction ensemble methodology, and (3) further improvements of forcing series. We suggest that much of the sensitivity in the reconstructions, a topic that has dominated scientific debates, can be traced back to the input data. It is perhaps advisable to use fewer, but expert-assessed proxy records to reduce errors in future reconstruction efforts.
Um... have you read the whole paper? I've quoted the conclusion below. How does it support your opinion?
Current anthropogenic activities have led to unprecedented trajectories and states in the earth’s coupled climate system, but characterization of the natural climate variability will at least allow a better understanding of the basic operating rules and patterns of climate change. In the context of trying to understand the consequences of new anthropogenic regimes, this uniformitarianism paradigm must be flipped and the past used to grasp hints for what the future may hold.
We have herein reviewed the changing icons in high-resolution paleoclimateology and discussed the current (post-2007 IPCC) understanding of largescale temperature variation over the past 1000 or so years. We suggest that expert knowledge of the proxy archives will be critical to reduce uncertainties and large-scale reconstructions. At the same time, recognition and acceptance of structural uncertainties will allow a more accurate assessment of reconstruction errors. Improved forcing time series will allow
refined hindcasts and ultimately better predictions. For at least the next several hundred years, observed climate variations will be a superposition of natural and anthropogenic forcing.
It is premature to conclude that human activities--and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming--have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet properly modeled (e.g., aerosol effects).
Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.
There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the numbers of very intense hurricanes in some basins—an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm numbers is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical storms.
Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes, with a model-projected increase of about 20% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center.
oh, the old, it will happen 100 years from now, and we know this because our computer models tell us that will happen routine. as anyone who has even a modicum of programming experience will tell you, garbage in = garbage out. there are many things wrong with the computer models, one is the data, and the assumptions that are made when applying that data, and two is the program itself. yes the code can be manipulated to produce what ever output you want. dont believe me on that? ask my brother who works for IBM in software development. you might be willing to accept flawed computer models, but i am not, i prefer real models.
also you keep putting out these updated paleoclimate models, and again expect them to be accurate on many levels, including temperature, and if the climate modelers are using the same program to model future climate change, then the past models are also flawed. i realize that some models were developed with good intentions to get accurate results, but the problem is that none of the models take everything into account, and thus can never be accurate.
Seriously? Posting an old video of Muller misrepresenting Phil Jones email? The debunked 'climategate' 'hide the decline' misrepresentation???
Muller is also not a climate scientist, he's a physicist, but he should have known better and I bet he wishes he had never done that video. Luckily, not long later, he organised the BEST group to do their own study and found:
Uh oh..... a 'hockey stick'. Confirming Mann's reconstruction. (as have about 20 or so reconstructions since Mann's 1998 paper) Which seems to have been ignored by the right-wing media.
Muller says:
When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.
"CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases."
You're attempting to move the goal posts, are we discussing Mann's hockey stick or the Best study?
No moving of goalposts, but you seem to have missed about 20 goals kicked through those same goal posts.
I was discussing your use of an old video by physicist Richard Muller who, at that time, didn't even know what the 'goal posts' were. He had gotten sucked into the bogus so-called "Climategate scandal" of latching onto phrases like "Mike's Nature trick" and "hide the decline" that were taken out of context from the hacked the CRU emails. Since then, eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The emails have been explained in their original context and the CRU scientists and Michael Mann were exonerated. They weren't trying to hide or fake anything.
Richard Muller then went on to do his own study of surface temperature trends with 16 other scientists, (partly funded by Charles Koch- which is truly ironic given the results)-The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study (BEST). He found the same 'hockey stick' trend as Mann even though he used different data and methods. That's why he changed his views on AGW.
Other scientists had already confirmed Mann's 'hockey stick' trend in about 20 other studies using different methods and much more data than Mann had used. Richard Muller finally had to admit he had been wrong because his own study showed the same trend as Mann's.
Just google "Climategate debunked" if you want to know more.
Strange since global warming was suppose to increase the hurricane numbers and strength... I guess global warming went on vacation on Jupiter...
Why don't hurricanes hit North America in winter?
Answer: Because they need warm conditions to remain intact.
Since hurricanes need warm conditions global warming could make hurricanes more frequent and stronger.
The reason we have not had any hurricanes this year is, as your source states "a combination of atmospheric wind patterns, and how close to the coast hurricanes form and luck."
And on the global warming debate,
Fox news and Rush radio tells everyone that "man made global warming is not happening."
But NASA and 97% of all climate scientists say "man made global warming is happening."
The following Australian documentary shows/explains how Fox news says untrue things about global warming as a favor for ExxonMobile. If we do something about global warming the large corporations that finance Fox/Rush will make less money.
Fox news and Rush radio tells everyone that "man made global warming is not happening."
But NASA and 97% of all climate scientists say "man made global warming is happening."
I'm actually a bit troubled about what it means about the climate when there have been no hurricanes by mid-September. Hurricanes are nature's way of beginning a balanced transition from the hot season to the cold season. They're necessary.
People shouldn't breathe a sigh of relief or boast happiness at the lack of that happening, but should be worried that 1) we're entering an ice age to compensate for every decade being hotter than the one before; 2) what storms do come will be once in a century storms - which are becoming more frequent in the past 8 years when they do happen; 3) man is out of balance with nature, such as all these weather modification projects going on that artificially change natural weather events and therefore the patterns also.
No hurricanes by mid-September is extraordinary and I mean that in a way that this is a troubling aberration in weather.
Since hurricanes need warm conditions global warming could make hurricanes more frequent and stronger.
Ummm yeah. Thank you for proving that the global warmers are bonkers.
Now five........ten......twenty years from now we could get some of those conditions you mention to create hurricanes but it aint gonna be caused by folks breathing too much. If you think so then you are so far lost there is no return.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
