Judith Curry, ask a stupid question, expect a stupid answer! Harvey's global warming connection.

The hallmark of a great scientist is the ability to ask great questions.  Questions who's pursuit leads to meaningful progress towards understanding.  When it comes to our country's contentious manmade global warming discussion, it also comes down to how serious one is about asking meaningful questions that allow for meaningful constructive answers. (last edit Sept 1)

Judith Curry writes, “Anyone blaming  Harvey on global warming doesn’t have a leg to stand on.”  (I thought she knew about climatology. Please consider.)

* Global warming is definitely directly related to that hot Gulf of Mexico waters that fed an explosive intensification of a tropical storm.

* Global warming is definitely directly related to the fact that the atmosphere is holding more moisture and making it available for storm systems such as Harvey to collect and dump.

* Global warming is definitely directly related to the fact that our Jet Stream has gotten weirder and is currently causing the stalling and reversal of Harvey’s northward movement.

* Global warming is definitely directly related to the fact that sea level is rising and thus adding substantially to damaging storm surges.

* Global warming is definitely directly related the Brown Ocean Effect that continued feeding moisture, energy into Harvey after it made land fall.

h/t to Paul Beckwith 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zus0ICUvd1c.

also see

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/brown-ocean-can-fuel-inland-tropical-cyclones/

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/learn-about-the-weather/tropical-cyclones/brown-ocean-effect

250 hPa - Jet Stream

https://earth.nullschool.net

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

I was told to read this recent article by Judith Curry regarding Hurricane Harvey.  I did as requested and was baffled, what was I was supposed to find interesting in it?  Other than watching Judith’s outrageously biased perspective manipulate facts into fantasy, which is a thing worth studying.  So with no further ado, lets take a look.

Hurricane Harvey: long-range forecasts

Posted on August 27, 2017

by Judith Curry

Shining light on NC-20 Burton's devious distortions

In this post I'm getting back to looking at Dave 'NC-20' Burton's narrative.  We've been having a bit of a debate over at the comments section of WUNC's article by Dave Dewitt titled, "The Changing Carolina Coast: Managing the Threat of Rising Water."   Dave jumps around a lot so I'm focusing on specific quotes.  In this case I want to answer some of his responses to my previous post.  

In that write up I included many links to sources indicating observed accelerating sea level rise, but NC-20 keeps trying to drag attention back to the last century and what he fancies "insignificant" sea level rise.  He also makes much of "no coastal Sea Level acceleration," but he leaves out all the details since they would undermine his claims.  I chose to look at those details and learn.  In this post along with my commentary I'll be sharing authoritative sources so the interested can learn and decide for themselves.

Consider our Earth as a real physical entity, it's cryosphere (glaciers, sea ice) have been in a stable condition for the past few thousands of years, since the end of the last ice age.  The documented warming of the past century acted to soften up and fracture that ice mass, like a block of ice left on a warm sidewalk.  Of course melting (and water contribution) is slow during these initial phases of warming!  That's no cause for ignoring what is happening this century. 

An Introduction to Changes due to Glaciation and Current Conditions

by Ralph W. Tiner

Perhaps his biggest deception is making an issue of the stately rate of sea level rise during the last century, then pretending it's a guide to this century.  Such deliberate misperceptions needs to be confronted.  

____________________________________________________________
NC-20  Burton writes:  Thank you, CC  for the links, and for verifying what I told you, even if you apparently didn't read it.

I wrote, "DavidAppell, do you now agree that that graph (of sea-level at Brest, France) shows "no apparent acceleration" since the turn of the 20th century? However, if you use the data all the way back to 1807, there is acceleration, because the rate of sea-level rise accelerated slightly in the late 19th century. Here's the spreadsheet ... Here's the chart …"

For comparison, here's a quote from the Wöppelmann et al paper that you cited:

"Both instrumental records show a roughly coincident increase in the rate of relative sea-level rise around the end of the 19th century."

As you can see, we agree.

____________________________________________________

"accelerated slightly" - slightly???

In NC-20's cartoon world-view this rather dramatic shift in sea level trend makes no impression at all.  An example of how the bias-filter alters the perception of reality, since it wouldn't do to recognize how dramatic that acceleration actually was.  

Also, please notice, it was no up-tick followed by a drop.  It's been relentlessly uphill ever since.  Thus NC-20 is left with nit-picking the "acceleration rate"  during the previous century with all his might.  All the while doing his best to ignore the observed acceleration in our 21st century.

26:00 min. - GRAPH - Global Trend Sea Level, (Reconstruction from EMD residuals)

___________________________________________________________________

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-reveals-acceleration-of-sea-level-rise-20055

Poptech's indignation (#4 in comment series)

These couple of comments are pretty anticlimactic, just a bunch of whining that I wasn't posting Andrew's comments fast enough for him.  Oh and indignation that I should dare to make his comments the center of stand alone posts.  Now if he'd have actually addressed the content of those posts in any serious manner that would have been one thing, but if you look, think you'll agree they are pretty generic pitch-lines. 

Seems Poptech doesn't appreciate anyone taking a close look at his words and logic in action.  Now I predict he's going to do his best to ignore me over here.  Possibly post some nasty stuff about me at his blog, and I suspect he'll pull a Jim Steele by doing it stealthy, so I don't go over there to take a look at it.  But, if Andrew's upfront about it, so much the better.

His first comment was posted and responded to, those responses I'm sharing here, nothing else to add.  I do want to point out that as is usual with the contrarian crowd,  Andrew is too busy rationalizing and broadcasting his own self-certain storyline, to listen to, think about, or respond to what anyone else asks him.  

A very lopsided perspective on what a learning dialogue is all about.  I'll start with the final one first.  Andrew's previous comments can be linked to here one, two, three - they are more interesting than this tripe.

________________________________________________

January 26, 2016 at 6:56 PM Andrew has left a new comment on your post "Debating Malicious Ignorance - Poptech, a few ques...": 

If you refuse to allow my comments through on the post they were made, I will cease replying here. Let me know if I need to use your website as an example of Alarmist censorship.

FYI, I did not ask your permission to re-post anything on my website. 

_____________________________________________________________

January 26, 2016 at 5:01 PM  - Andrew said...

Why are you still censoring all of my comments? Do I have to re-post them at my website?

Posted by Andrew to What'sUpWithThatWatts, et al. at January 26, 2016 at 5:01 PM

_____________________________________________________________

January 26, 2016 at 5:01 PM 

citizenschallenge said...

In due time. You can find your "Andrew (at 2:01AM - Jan 26, 2016)" comment over here:

whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/01/poptechs-boilerplate-response.html 

_____________________________________________________________

citizenschallenge said... I'm going to be presenting your comments as stand alone posts, after all this blog is about dissecting contrarian debate tactics.

Be patient, I managed one out of four this morning, tomorrow I may have more time available. 

Oh, you are welcome to post them over at your blog, I have no objections.

You're also welcome to response to my response to your 2:02AM Comment

January 26, 2016 at 5:26 PM 

_____________________________________________________________

citizenschallenge said...

Oh and Poptech, Why is it OK for you to side step critical questions about world observation throughout our biosphere???

NOAA's TEN SIGNS OF A WARMING WORLD

Your grand indignation is mind boggling. 

But, you feel quite comfort ignoring everything important that doesn't fit your game plan. How's that work?

How about it? What give you the right to ignore this stuff?

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/global-warming.php