Stormy Weather? Not so much.

[Harold Squared]

 

Citation needed: please provide a reference to the peer-reviewed paper or papers that do this.

 

Or perhaps you could stop inventing things that people don't do.

 

 

There is some evidence for this, for example: http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~kossin/articles/nature07234.pdf

 

But like much in science (natural science, in particular) it is not (yet) conclusive.

 

(As you provide no source for your claims, I won't comment on them.)

 

 

Or you have created yet another strawman argument.

Disingenuous lot, aren't you? You act as if the no holds barred battle for public opinion and policy goals is confined to scientific journals, maybe that's all you have time to read. Check out what the Faithful have to say in the mass media sometime. Many of them have scientific credentials as abysmal as those of Al Gore, but I have yet to see their more sophisticated Brethren correct them, in any venue.

 

Actually, though, in the instance of the South Asian example cited, I got that little nugget from our Brother iNow, you would think he knew better.

 

I read your paper evidence, no mention of AGW involvement, only warmer water temperatures, etiology unspecified. Principally concerned with maximum observed wind velocities rather than total cyclone energy if I am correct. I particularly like the use of satellite data. If you will inspect my post a bit more carefully you will notice I have perused wunderground.com for the claim very prominently made. Thanks for being honest enough there is some room for further investigation instead of bleating, "The science is settled", the typical and annoying chorus of the Faithful. If you don't bother to check out wunderground.com, I don't imagine it will bother them overmuch.

Edited June 9, 2015 by Harold Squared

[Strange]

Check out what the Faithful have to say in the mass media sometime.

 

That would be relevant if your criticisms were just of the reporting of the problem. But you are in full-on denial that there is a problem. You are denying the science, so the science is the relevant thing to discuss.

 

The quality of the public debate is a different issue. We can get to that, after you acknowledge that the science is sound.

 

 

Thanks for being honest enough there is some room for further investigation instead of bleating, "The science is settled"

 

As nobody says that, this is just another (or the same old) straw man argument.

 

 

I have perused wunderground.com for the claim very prominently made.

 

You need to learn how to cite, or link to, your sources.

[iNow]

[Harold Squared]

Again, disingenuous. The primary appeal of the Faithful is to FEAR, an emotional one. Without said fear, funding for research is not to be had. Your cult is a political dog wagging a pseudoscientific tail, similar to Soviet era Lysenkoism.

 

But AGW, per se, is not the subject of the thread.

 

The data on wunderground.com and the conclusion of your article may very well both be true. It may indeed be that the increase in top speeds is trivial in terms of ACE, an artifact of better satellite instrumentation, or both.

 

If you would like to comment on such possibilities, you are invited to do so, a guy with your savvy should be able to find the website. I don't put up links and I don't put up funny pictures, sue me. I will be happy to direct anyone to my sources, however.

 

You should also be able to find an abundance of cases of people saying THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED in as many words and which you imply in your response.

 

Slipping there, Brother.

Edited June 9, 2015 by Harold Squared

[Phi for All]

I will be happy to direct anyone to my sources, however.

 

!

Moderator Note

Please do, whenever making an assertion. Thank you.

[Harold Squared]

Cute. No doubt derived from impeccably peer reviewed literature in the most prestigious journal on the subject.

 

But returning to the topic, it is a damned good thing that the infamous Hurricane of 1900 or the Okeechobee Hurricane of 1928 have not become significantly more frequent. The effects of the 1900 storm were felt as far away as Canada according to reports and the official estimate of death roll is 8,000. Despite uncertainties it is still ranked most deadly on record, with the 1928 storm number two.

 

Katrina was ranked third and the damage caused by this event has been at least partially attributed to inadequate infrastructure in and around the Crescent City.

 

!

Moderator Note

Please do, whenever making an assertion. Thank you.

Thank you for the feedback. I intend to explain the appeal of my sources to my credibility when it seems warranted.

[iNow]

It was directly requested of you, here and elsewhere, by both members and site staff. Ipso facto: It is warranted and your continued refusal to address it is a violation of the rules to which you agreed when registering your account.

[Phi for All]

Thank you for the feedback. I intend to explain the appeal of my sources to my credibility when it seems warranted.

 

!

Moderator Note

It's warranted now. I've had several reported posts about your hand-wavy assertions backed up by nothing but hot air and fallacies. That stops now. Please cite your sources EVERY TIME you make an assertion. And yes, that's a special consequence for ignoring repeated warnings. I'm sure you'll correct your behavior quickly in the interest of productive discussion.

[swansont]

I will be happy to direct anyone to my sources, however.

 

!

Moderator Note

Find Nirvana and provide links to them, for all of your claims

 

Disingenuous lot, aren't you? You act as if the no holds barred battle for public opinion and policy goals is confined to scientific journals, maybe that's all you have time to read.

!

Moderator Note

this isn't posted in politics; public opinion and policy goals are off-topic

[Harold Squared]

 

!

Moderator Note

It's warranted now. I've had several reported posts about your hand-wavy assertions backed up by nothing but hot air and fallacies. That stops now. Please cite your sources EVERY TIME you make an assertion. And yes, that's a special consequence for ignoring repeated warnings. I'm sure you'll correct your behavior quickly in the interest of productive discussion.

Very well, I find wunderground.com appealing because it is available to all without subscription and looks to be without bias one way or another, just the facts. This seems rather extraordinary a requirement and I do not understand why it is being asked of me and nobody else, but hey, why not if it will help you guys figure it out? Also I tend to click on the link and forget to respond to the post that I have to hunt for later, that can be a pain.

 

I don't post links because of the limitations of my equipment and I don't post funny pictures of cartoons and Star Trek guys or movie scenes because they are childish attempts at ridicule with no basis in scientific fact.

 

Obviously not all of you have the same opinion, you know who you are.

!

Moderator Note

Find Nirvana and provide links to them, for all of your claims

 

!

Moderator Note

this isn't posted in politics; public opinion and policy goals are off-topic

Nirvana is a band I personally do not care for and unrelated to the topic. The IPCC is a political body governing meteorological policy and financing meteorological research. Wikipedia, for reasons of convenience.

[overtone]

 

 

The IPCC is a political body governing meteorological policy and financing meteorological research.

There is no such thing as "meteorological policy", and the IPCC governs nothing. http://www.ipcc.ch

 

The IPCC finances no meteorological research. Here is what the IPCC finances: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipcc-scholarship-programme/ipcc_scholarshipprogramme.shtml

 

And here is a description of how the IPCC itself is financed: https://www.nzclimatechangecentre.org/ipcc/process

[dimreepr]

Very well, I find wunderground.com appealing because it is available to all without subscription and looks to be without bias one way or another, just the facts. This seems rather extraordinary a requirement and I do not understand why it is being asked of me and nobody else, but hey, why not if it will help you guys figure it out? Also I tend to click on the link and forget to respond to the post that I have to hunt for later, that can be a pain.

 

 

Finally! We can agree on something, although I’m unsure how this supports your assertions?

 

Scientists have been studying climate change since the late 1800s when the greenhouse effect was first hypothesized. Now, 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening, that it’s man made, and that if greenhouse gas emissions continue, the warming will accelerate.

 

[Harold Squared]

There is no such thing as "meteorological policy", and the IPCC governs nothing. http://www.ipcc.ch

 

The IPCC finances no meteorological research. Here is what the IPCC finances: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipcc-scholarship-programme/ipcc_scholarshipprogramme.shtml

 

And here is a description of how the IPCC itself is financed: https://www.nzclimatechangecentre.org/ipcc/process

I am grateful for the correction, I spoke in haste.

 

The IPCC is a profoundly influential political body concerned with climate related issues, by definition. Its principal concern is the AGW hypothesis and not other causes of climate variation known to exist in the past and which are very possibly still in operation. It periodically releases reports with the expressed intention of influencing public policy. The climate models used for such purposes are of questionable reliability and have been modified numerous times.

 

Would you admit the summary above to be more accurate?

[overtone]

The IPCC is a profoundly influential political body concerned with climate related issues, by definition. Its principal concern is the AGW hypothesis and not other causes of climate variation known to exist in the past and which are very possibly still in operation.

It is principally concerned with climate change in general, including all the natural causes and variations. It pays a lot of attention to all the known natural causes of climate variation, and is always on the lookout for more operating both in the past and in the present - that's its job.

 

It is a scientific consultant body, not a political body. Its reports are public, used by industry and commercial entities as well as governments and other organizations. It was formed as it was - international, non-commercial - in part to reduce the influence of commercial and political concerns.

 

It uses models to inform its forecasting, as anyone must who forecasts. The models are being continuously modified and updated, especially with the results of the huge current research efforts being devoted to natural climate variation.

 

The forecasts from the models have been pretty good, remarkably close to the incoming data in most ways (such as air and ocean temperatures) but exhibit some consistent trends of error that indicate overlooked or mishandled factors. The most visible one so far has been the serious underestimation of the Arctic and Antarctic ice melt - the forecasts from fifteen years ago called for our current state of melt around 2050, a melt rate a quarter of what has been experienced. There is also the matter of the underestimation of heat absorption by the deeper ocean, which undermines IPCC reassurances regarding methane feedback and certain weather potentials.

 

 

 

 

Would you admit the summary above to be more accurate?

No, just a bit more vague. You're still reposting Fox News crapola. Edited June 10, 2015 by overtone

[Harold Squared]

Not at all, sir, not at all. I hardly think you can point to Fox saying as much.

 

But we digress.

 

The facts indisputable are that the most destructive storms on record are unrelated to CO2 levels and that the general trend has been one of decline since 1900. No link between rising levels of greenhouse gases and storm activity has been even tenuosly established. What relevance your ice melt observations have to the topic are obscure to me, would you care to elaborate?

[dimreepr]

Not at all, sir, not at all. I hardly think you can point to Fox saying as much.

 

But we digress.

 

The facts indisputable are that the most destructive storms on record are unrelated to CO2 levels and that the general trend has been one of decline since 1900. No link between rising levels of greenhouse gases and storm activity has been even tenuosly established. What relevance your ice melt observations have to the topic are obscure to me, would you care to elaborate?

 

 

You really don’t understand physics, even on a basic level.

 

The facts indisputable are that the most destructive storms on record are unrelated to CO2 levels

 

 

 

 

Basic physics suggests a hurricane would be more powerful in a system that contains more energy and since CO2 traps energy; go do the math.

[overtone]

 

 

The facts indisputable are that the most destructive storms on record are unrelated to CO2 levels and that the general trend has been one of decline since 1900.

Six of the ten most intense (powerful) Atlantic hurricanes since 1900 have occurred on or after the AGW air temperature spike in 1998. http://www.weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/strongest-hurricanes-most-intense-atlantic-hurricanes-20130911#/10

 

If you divide the 114 complete years since 1900 into three 38 year intervals, of those ten we have one in the first 38 years, one in the second 38 years, and eight in the third 38 years.