Global warming

[Megalodon]

What a maroon!

Let's put it this way, hazy: You come up with an argument for dismissing the graphs, instead of saying I should get educated.

That, you know, is an ad-hominem, the logical fallacy you so like to throw around (without getting it right once).

Here's laughing at you...

 

[mhaze]

I don't know if the data is fake, but I do know that someone took it very lightly to make a calculation of "cyclone energy" before the end of the hurricane season. It smells like propaganda, especially since the number of named storms, and the number of cat.3+ doesn't seem to be unusually low. But I have to look deeper into it before making any big statements on the matter.

Hmm.....

You don't like DR's using nine months of a year....
You do like Hansen using five months of a year....
You don't like "cyclone energy" computations before the end of the hurricane season....that "smells like propaganda".

But I have to look deeper into it before making any big statements on the matter.
​

Yes, indeed. Please let us all know what you find. I'm particularly interested in whether you do find it "smells like propaganda", and whether the data is fake.

Can we expect that big statement shortly?

 

[Megalodon]

Hmm.....

You don't like DR's using nine months of a year....

Don't have a great problem with him doing it... Now, I don't make yearly averages with 9 months... I know it's a distinction dificult to grasp, but do try.

You do like Hansen using five months of a year....

You don't get tired of lying, do you?
You are again equating the calculation of a yearly average based on 9 months with a general forecast (a correct one) for a year based on the first 5 months of that year, with the acknowledgement that it might be wrong, even if unprobable.

You don't like "cyclone energy" computations before the end of the hurricane season....that "smells like propaganda".

It's one thing to make a general forecast, the other to put a value on a graph. Maybe someday you'll learn the difference between the two situations.

Yes, indeed. Please let us all know what you find. I'm particularly interested in whether you do find it "smells like propaganda", and whether the data is fake.

Since I didn't claim that the data was fake, should I count that one as a lie, poor reading comprehension or just general slopiness?

I did say it smelled like propaganda, and I stand by that comment. But it will be interesting to see the result by the end of the season. In the meanwhile, it doesn't help that they say things like

While the number of named storms is above normal, their integrated intensity has not matched the hyper-active expectations of many seasonal forecasters

So they actually agree with me when I said that the number of named storms, and the number of cat.3+ doesn't seem to be unusually low. So now it's a question of what metric to use, right? And what the rest of the season has to offer...

 

[mhaze]

D
Since I didn't claim that the data was fake, should I count that one as a lie, poor reading comprehension or just general slopiness?

I did say it smelled like propaganda...

So they actually agree with me when I said that the number of named storms, and the number of cat.3+ doesn't seem to be unusually low. So now it's a question of what metric to use, right? And what the rest of the season has to offer...

Thank you for your prompt response. Well as to whether to count it as a lie, I don't know. One argument would be, be consistent. Count everything anyone says as a lie (well, if they are anti AGW). That'd be one approach. But you did mention possibly the data being faked, as I understood it. So I just presumed you were going to check that out. You will check it out, right?

Thank you for the clarifications.

You don't like DR's using nine months of a year....
You do like Hansen using five months of a year....
You don't like "cyclone energy" computations before the end of the hurricane season....that "smells like propaganda".

But I have to look deeper into it before making any big statements on the matter.
​

Yes, indeed. Please let us all know what you find. I'm particularly interested in whether you do find it "smells like propaganda", and whether the data is fake.

When can we expect that big statement?

Oh. By the way. While you are looking into the various research topics mentioned in my other comment, please check on the relationships of hurricane intensity to AGW. See if there are inter relationships between Pacific Decadal Oscillations, ENSO, and these subjects.

Can you report back on that also?

 

[Megalodon]

Not everyone hazy, only the ones who blatantly lie...

I like how you strive to not understand the parts that you avoided to quote, and keep on making up a position for me.

And yes, I will do all that you suggest. I will then proceed to discover the unified theory of life, the universe and everything, and also bake you some cookies... grow up.

 

[Schneibster]

I'm still waitin', hazy. Perhaps this will remind you: if all you want to do is talk about the science, how come you keep using fake science, and rhetorical arguments to support it, instead of real science (of which there is plenty) and straight talk?

 

[mhaze]

Not everyone hazy, only the ones who blatantly lie...

I like how you strive to not understand the parts that you avoided to quote, and keep on making up a position for me.

And yes, I will do all that you suggest. I will then proceed to discover the unified theory of life, the universe and everything, and also bake you some cookies... grow up.

All the blatant liars should be exposed.

There may be a whole lot of them. Let us know how you do on that. I may help a bit. I can suggest additional sources of people and articles that you may want to examine for blatant lies.

Let us know about all these liars and about the propaganda.

I'll pass on the cookies, thanks. But when you cook them, heat up some warm milk to go with them. Right before beddy by time?

 

[Megalodon]

You missed this, mhaze

You come up with an argument for dismissing the graphs, instead of saying I should get educated.

That, you know, is an ad-hominem, the logical fallacy you so like to throw around (without getting it right once).

I know you don't like my graphs, now give us the scientific rationale why they are so wrong that I should educate myself in internet blogs...

Put up, or shut up.

 

[Schneibster]

And you STILL don't have an answer, do you? You know, I'm just beginning to realize I hit the nail on the head.

Who the hell are you, anyway?

 

[mhaze]

Schnieb....

The Times they are a-changing. No Realclimate...

Varoche... Junkscience...

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2317#comment

2007 Weblog Award Finalists

By Steve McIntyre
The Weblog Awards are the world’s largest blog competition, with over 525,000 votes cast in the 2006 edition for finalists in 45 categories. Nominations for 49 categories ended October 17, 2007 and voting is scheduled to begin November 1, 2007. Final results will be announced November 8, 2007 at the BlogWorld & New Media Expo in Las Vegas.
Nominations for Best Science Blog are:
SciGuy
Junk Science
In the Pipeline
Journey By Starlight
Paryngula
Bad Astronomy Blog
Invasive Species Weblog
Sciencebase
Climate Audit
Bootstrap Analysis

 

[Schneibster]

I haven't got the slightest idea what you think that has to do with anything. Are you going to answer my questions? Because from the fact you're not answering, I'm concluding that your entire agenda here is political; that it has nothing to do with science and never did. And I'm pretty sure there are a lot of people reading this, many more than comment on it, who are rapidly coming to the same conclusion.

 

[David Rodale]

Now to see how those percentages compare with the previous decades

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2814729bfd3b18c7.jpg[/qimg]

Neat, no warming... The mean just decided to move from 0 to 0.3 for a beer, and it will be right back.

At least CD understands what El Nino and El Nina are. Please look into the matter so you don't waste more time making graphs and apply your skills to more productive matters. I never said it has not warmed; it is not warming in the current decade and the latest ocean heat content numbers verify it. There would appear to be a connection to the low tropical storm activity as well. Nevertheless, it is true as of Sep07 we are at about at the same point as in Sep88, and dropping.

 

[Schneibster]

mhaze is busy figuring out how to hack the polling computer so he can announce that Climate frAudit won the award for most popular "science" web site.

 

[a_unique_person]

Schnieb....

The Times they are a-changing. No Realclimate...

Varoche... Junkscience...

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2317#comment

2007 Weblog Award Finalists

By Steve McIntyre
The Weblog Awards are the world’s largest blog competition, with over 525,000 votes cast in the 2006 edition for finalists in 45 categories. Nominations for 49 categories ended October 17, 2007 and voting is scheduled to begin November 1, 2007. Final results will be announced November 8, 2007 at the BlogWorld & New Media Expo in Las Vegas.
Nominations for Best Science Blog are:
SciGuy
Junk Science
In the Pipeline
Journey By Starlight
Paryngula
Bad Astronomy Blog
Invasive Species Weblog
Sciencebase
Climate Audit
Bootstrap Analysis

If McIntyre is serious, why no auditing of any denier claims?

 

[a_unique_person]

At least CD understands what El Nino and El Nina are. Please look into the matter so you don't waste more time making graphs and apply your skills to more productive matters. I never said it has not warmed; it is not warming in the current decade and the latest ocean heat content numbers verify it. There would appear to be a connection to the low tropical storm activity as well. Nevertheless, it is true as of Sep07 we are at about at the same point as in Sep88, and dropping.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_103234703ba621b1ee.jpghttp://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_103234703ba9de0770.jpg

Have a look at your own graph. The La Nina's have virtually disappeared.

 

[fsol]

Schnieb....

The Times they are a-changing. No Realclimate...

Varoche... Junkscience...

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2317#comment

2007 Weblog Award Finalists

By Steve McIntyre
The Weblog Awards are the world’s largest blog competition, with over 525,000 votes cast in the 2006 edition for finalists in 45 categories. Nominations for 49 categories ended October 17, 2007 and voting is scheduled to begin November 1, 2007. Final results will be announced November 8, 2007 at the BlogWorld & New Media Expo in Las Vegas.
Nominations for Best Science Blog are:
SciGuy
Junk Science
In the Pipeline
Journey By Starlight
Paryngula
Bad Astronomy Blog
Invasive Species Weblog
Sciencebase
Climate Audit
Bootstrap Analysis

Argument by award show? Al Gore and the IPCC just won the Nobel Peace Prize didn't they?

 

[Megalodon]

Argument by award show? Al Gore and the IPCC just won the Nobel Peace Prize didn't they?

Yes, but the Nobel Commitee are a bunch of commies with their heads set on world domination... or something...

 

[Megalodon]

At least CD understands what El Nino and El Nina are.

Don't presume to know what I do or do not understand, DR... Your record in this thread makes you the least suited for it.

Please look into the matter so you don't waste more time making graphs and apply your skills to more productive matters.

Your concern over my productivity is touching... Does it have anything to do with the fact that my graphs keep showing that you're wrong?

And I see a pattern here also. Mhaze tells me to look into blogs, you tell me to look into El Niño, but none of you feels like actually discussing the shift of temperatures in this decade...

I never said it has not warmed;

Yes you did, repeatedly...

it is not warming in the current decade and the latest ocean heat content numbers verify it.

So trying to shift the goalposts again, are we? Where was your preocupation with the heat content of the oceans when you started posting your global atmosphere temperature anomaly graphs? Shown to be wrong, you now take refuge on a different metric. Ok, link to the database, so that I can use my time in more productive ways...

BTW your figures have no attribution, which is bad form. And you didn't explain us what you think they tell, anyhow. I guess you think they back up your argument.

There would appear to be a connection to the low tropical storm activity as well. Nevertheless, it is true as of Sep07 we are at about at the same point as in Sep88, and dropping.

It does? Why don't you show that connection? All you have are vague assertions.

 

[Locri]

This is kinda sad... in the last page or so, the "discussion" has degraded to the point where I would expect this type of arguing in a pre-school. Seriously, what's up with all the name calling?

Anyways... maybe we can salvage this discussion yet, I'm going to try to get things more on topic.

So, my question to start with is this (for the AGW side, and we can happily do the Anti-AGW side later, but things will get too muddled if there are two many things brought up at once): What evidence/type of argument would be able to convince you that AGW is not happening, or at least to a minimal extent that would not cause any of the ills that are reported as things that will happen?

 

[mhaze]

If McIntyre is serious, why no auditing of any denier claims?

Well, that's a decent question. In the absence of help from him, we may have to do it.

I believe I've found a skeptical claim (Denier may be not a good word to use) which should be discussed, and for which the Warmers could contribute serious input to determining whether, in fact, the claim is bogus or not.