Comments on: GCCI Report #2: Climate Must Be Dead Stable Without Man

By: Fred

Fred — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:27:01 +0000

…throw him an anvil.

By: Mitchel44

Mitchel44 — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:25:31 +0000

Saw an interesting paper a couple of months ago on this issue, Climate, hydrology and freshwater: towards an interactive incorporation of hydrological experience into climate research, you can get it here, http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/abs/10.1623/hysj.54.2.394

They raise some interesting points and detail some rather glaring flaws with the IPCC reports methods and conclusions, which is the basis for this report after all.

But, it’s just another paper right, lot’s of them out there.

By: Highlander

Highlander — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:09:19 +0000

As always, one ~must~ remember: The effect can ~never~ overcome the cause.

By: Interglacial John

Interglacial John — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:18:31 +0000

who let hunter into the deep end of the pool? obviously over his head. my training in earth sciences taught me one lesson over all others, there is no “normal” in climate. there are averages over time, but these are essentially meaningless when attempting to determine what the climate should be now. somebody throw hunter a life vest, or not.

By: An Inquirer

An Inquirer — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:25:05 +0000

It would be interesting to see the algorithm by which this precipation chart was arrived. I believe that the trend to slightly more precipitation in the U.S. is consistent with numerous studies, and that conclusion is robust over various start and end points. My hunch is that Warren Meyer is right that you will get different brown and blue spots by shifting the start and end dates a few years. For example, the rainfall record in my Midwest farm would call for a brown color if we went from the 60s to this decade, instead of the blue indicated. Meanwhile, I have followed the drought in Georgia quite closely over the last few years, and the GCCI chart does show brown for 1958-2008. That intrigued me since the the 1950s probably had the worst drought in recorded Georgia history. Indeed, Georgia State Averaged Precipitation Data shows an increase from 44.84 in 1958 to 47.75 in 2008 according to SERCC. There must be some type of smoothing technique used by GCCI. 1957 and 1959 had quite a bit of rainfall while 1954 was the low point in Georgia rainfall. The first 8 years of this decade have averaged 48.5 inches up from the 45.9 average for the first 8 years of the 1950s. Therefore it seems likely that many browns and blue areas would be changed by picking differenct start & end dates and algorithms. (Furthermore, by the time that this decade ends, the increased rainfall average is likely be even more pronounced as 2009 has been quite wet in Georgia.)

By: Anthony

Anthony — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:05:11 +0000

Hunter- You seem to forget that it is required that the Climate Change/Global Warming show it is happening. They also have to explain all the contradictory data. Belief that it is happening without being able to PROVE IT is Religion. The natural change side explains the various data nicely – Natural variations and cycles. Where is the CC/GW explanation? Other than Belief (i.e. Religious Certainty).

By: Hunter

Hunter — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 08:00:04 +0000

The public lobotomy continues…

“Shift the period by even a few years and the chart has the same mixture of blue and brown, but distributed differently.”

Prove it.

By: DrTorch

DrTorch — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:46:59 +0000

In fairness, they do identify that their models distinguish between natural phenomena and man-made. P. 20, top left. The one with the HUGE uncertainties that are made to look aesthetic.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:13:59 +0000

Funny thing, Florida precipitation is shown to be declining over the period, but a look at the entire record tells quite a different story:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/fl.html

increasing precipitation since 1900. Go figure. Someone really needs to ask “Why don’t you use all the data?”