• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Simple Question About AGW

mhaze said:
Heeeeeeeeeeeelloooooo!!!

A quick check of google shows 207,000 hits for "global warming" and Hurricanes.

Lots and lots of assertions (wrong, but sensational) that GW causes fiercer hurricanes. Lots of other opinions, also.
Click to expand...

Do you have a breakdown? As in, how many of the 207,000 hits for GW increasing cyclonic energy, and how many for each of the other opinions?
 
CapelDodger said:
Do you have a breakdown? As in, how many of the 207,000 hits for GW increasing cyclonic energy, and how many for each of the other opinions?
Click to expand...

I have no interest in doing any work to satisfy your curiosity about Google statistics. All these opinions are well represented therein.
 
Tokenconservative said:
That's the wonderful thing about AGW!

ANY "unusual" or even non-unusual weather event, local, regional, even global is caused by AGW!

Lots of hurricanes? AGW
No hurricanes? AGW.
Heavy rains? AGW
Drough? AGW
Cold? AGW
Hot? AGW.
Click to expand...

Sadly I am going to have to give this one some credit. One can find global warming scientists (and non-scientists) essentially blaming any non-usual weather event on global warming. Although I think it is daft to deny that there isn't a temporally local anomalous rise in average global temperature right now, my BS alarm went off when I started hearing both that there would be more storms and less storms in response to global warming.

The conclusion I, in my non-climate trained home, reached was: we just don't have reliable models to predict what will happen.

There was a lot of talk in early 2006 that it would be much the same as 2005. When it wasn't, suddenly there was a lot of talk about dust from Africa or something like that to explain why 2006 was so mild.

I felt pretty validated in my armchair science laboratory. Nobody knows what climate change will bring. But the alarmists are going to use every oddball weather event to point the finger at global warming.
 
Tokenconservative said:
And you believe that the ONLY possible reason for either sea level rise or subsidence can be...global warming? And you believe as well that because you live in Netherlands it's my job as an American to make sure your country is not flooded by naturally occuring sea level rise due to naturally occuring climate warming?

Why?

Tokie
Click to expand...

I suggest you learn to read.
You draw conclusions from my post that do not follow.
 
Tokenconservative said:
So my views tend rather away from the picayune and pedantic, into which most conversations on this issue quickly devolve. I don't have links. I will not shuffle through endless reams of esoteric "studies" of ice core bubbles and seafloor samples.
Click to expand...

In summary, you are unqualified to say anything one way or another, and uninterested in becoming qualified? What does that make you?

Tokenconservative said:
If you answer is no, then that leads a rational thinker to the next question:

AGWists claim that the "models" show them what the climate (and thereby weather) will be like 10, 20, even 100 years from now.

We can assume that they were working from these same models to determine that the post-2005 'cane seasons would produce larger, stronger and more stroms, can we not?

If they were so very, very wrong this close in (2 years) how are we to take their predictions for climate (and weather) 10, 20 or even 100 years hence, seriously?
Click to expand...

Were their predictions of the "things will get worse" sort, i.e. a general prediction, or of the "there will be 16 hurricanes" sort, i.e. a specific prediction?
 
Tokenconservative said:
Yes, there is...it's you reading comprehensively.
Click to expand...
I can only read your posts, not your mind: and if there is some connection between your premise and your conclusion, it is certainly not contained in your posts.

I prefer not to speculate on the contents of your mind.
 
As warned here. Since most people seem incapable of discussing this issue civily, you are now restricted to this thread only for discussing global warming. Do not start any new threads and do not attempt to discuss the issue anywhere else.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles
 
Last edited:
CapelDodger said:
Are you on anybody's ignore list yet? What rational being with any sense of humour would do that?

Great post. Keep 'em coming.
Click to expand...

Fiona's for sure (she only talks about feminist issues)...I think from my first post in response to here.

The guy who's SN starts with an S and sounds Germanic...can't remember it and I don't want to get any warnings for misspelling it...but he's a big time AGW monstershouter. But that's just recent.

I'm almost sure there are some others.

Maybe you could repost this and ask all who have me on ignore to ID themselves, and chastise them for missing some great comedy?

Tokie
 
Dr Adequate said:
I can only read your posts, not your mind: and if there is some connection between your premise and your conclusion, it is certainly not contained in your posts.

I prefer not to speculate on the contents of your mind.
Click to expand...

Well, it is hard to read a blank page....

I prefer not to speculate on the contents of my mind, either...so can't really blame you there!

Best wishes,
Tokie
 
Areas of China that virtually never see snow have been socked-in for a week now, stranding, knocking down power lines all over the place and stranding millions of factory workers traveling for a holiday.

Now, a few years ago, hot weather in Franch and England was blamed on AGW and a rather mundane hurricane season on this side of the pond were blamed on AGW...the winter after the summer in which the terrible, AGW-caused heat wave in France killed some 14,000 people (actually, France's miserable socialized medical system is what killed them) and was front page, above the fold news for weeks, record cold weather and heavy snow across the northern hemisphere that killed hundreds was backpage, ho-hum stuff.

So too, the record snowfall in China is backpage stuff.

Now AGWists will tell you that actually, "Global Warming" is a misnomer...it's "Climate Change." And what this means is that ANY unusual weather--hot, cold, wet, dry-- can be attributed to "Climate Change" (duh) and better, "normal" weather can be, as well!

So why is record and unusual cold and snow relegated to the back pages?

Well, because despite it new and improved name, Climate Change is still all about warming and those in the ACC (anthropogenic climate change) business know that public perception is reality...snow storms and freezing temps aren't good advertising for melting ice caps and rising seas, and besides, according to everything ACCists have been telling us, human activity is making things warmer, so if things actually look like they are getting colder, what's in it for them? They can't make money off of telling folks "go out and drive your SUV around the block to help ward off the next Ice Age...HURRY!"

Tokie
 
Tokenconservative said:
Areas of China that virtually never see snow have been socked-in for a week now, stranding, knocking down power lines all over the place and stranding millions of factory workers traveling for a holiday.
Tokie
Click to expand...

Yep.... that's people stranded who work in China but live in Hong Kong or other places outside the borders.

Didn't I hear something about a cool solar cycle?
Something else about no significant warming in the last decade?
And what's up about a foot of snow in Saudi Arabia?
 


These are the monthly temperature anomalies, since 1978.

To say that it's not warmed in the last decade is... well, depressing. The graph was made with the database that David Rodale was using to make his argument, so if someone has problems with it, talk to him, please.

I apologize for my scattered posting, but I've been too busy IRL.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
fsol said:
No significant warming in the last decade?

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/wiggles/
Click to expand...

For some reason, Tamino's blog comes across as downright entertaining, can't figure out why. He censors comments, so does RC, but RC seems to grind along in a ponderous word spinning and convoluted circuituous mode of prosletizing.

Maybe it's just the comments that Tamino gets, in response to his thinly veiled undercurrent of anger and impatienace. As an example -

From "FRED" -
With some irritation, let me also point out that trying to find out what would confirm or falsify a theory is not being a ‘denialist’ in relation to it. It is being interested in its truth or falsity. The idea that we should stop trying to find what are the observations which would confirm or deny this particular theory, or any scientific theory, is anti-scientific and anti-rational. I am not going to be stopped from doing this by being called silly names, and doubt Pielke is either.
​
Several people wrote in and said that with the hundreds or thousands of headlines they'd seen in 1998 and thereafter claiming that 1998 was "a tipping point" because it was so hot, eg., 1998 was used as evidence of global warming by the pro-AGW crowd, what was wrong with the "Anti-AGW" crowd using 1998 also?

Well, well, well now. What is your opinion of that?

Two wrongs don't make a right?:)
 
mhaze said:
For some reason, Tamino's blog comes across as downright entertaining, can't figure out why. He censors comments, so does RC, but RC seems to grind along in a ponderous word spinning and convoluted circuituous mode of prosletizing.

Maybe it's just the comments that Tamino gets, in response to his thinly veiled undercurrent of anger and impatienace.
Click to expand...
Notwithstanding this goofy non-seq, the site aptly demonstrates what anyone who is remotely familiar with the facts already knows: that your claim is pure, methane-emitting BS.

Incidentally, I haven't noticed if the numbers on 2007 have been posted. One year isn't all that significant, however David Rodale was making a big deal about 2007 (before the year was up) as a notable temp downturn...

According to NASA:
The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005 ... The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle.
Click to expand...
 
mhaze said:
For some reason, Tamino's blog comes across as downright entertaining, can't figure out why. He censors comments, so does RC, but RC seems to grind along in a ponderous word spinning and convoluted circuituous mode of prosletizing.

Maybe it's just the comments that Tamino gets, in response to his thinly veiled undercurrent of anger and impatienace. As an example -

From "FRED" -
With some irritation, let me also point out that trying to find out what would confirm or falsify a theory is not being a ‘denialist’ in relation to it. It is being interested in its truth or falsity. The idea that we should stop trying to find what are the observations which would confirm or deny this particular theory, or any scientific theory, is anti-scientific and anti-rational. I am not going to be stopped from doing this by being called silly names, and doubt Pielke is either.
​
Several people wrote in and said that with the hundreds or thousands of headlines they'd seen in 1998 and thereafter claiming that 1998 was "a tipping point" because it was so hot, eg., 1998 was used as evidence of global warming by the pro-AGW crowd, what was wrong with the "Anti-AGW" crowd using 1998 also?

Well, well, well now. What is your opinion of that?

Two wrongs don't make a right?:)
Click to expand...

So you can't argue against the data and analysis so instead you attempt to change the subject. Well I suppose you can do that, no one is stopping you. It's just not very sporting.

This thread is 'entertaining' also.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/
 
fsol said:
So you can't argue against the data and analysis so instead you attempt to change the subject. Well I suppose you can do that, no one is stopping you. It's just not very sporting.

This thread is 'entertaining' also.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/
Click to expand...

Oh, you took his "statistical analysis" seriously. Okay, then. I'm just a bit dense today. Well, let's see - his presumption is that current events have noise plus a 0.18C GW signal overlaid on top of noise at least through the year 2035. He is making an argument that basically all climate is noise except for the 0.18C GW signal and that if you pick an arbitrary outlier and equate it to 1998, you can still see a rising trend.

we know, without any doubt whatsoever, that the signal is still increasing, at a rate of exactly 0.018 deg.C/yr. It’s the noise that shows cooling — and for such a short time span, the cooling in the noise overwhelms the warming in the signal.

Well....DUHHHHH!!!

So here's your requested "argument against the data and analysis"

1. No, there is no reason to consider all natural causes of climate change as random noise and less reason to consider it equal to 0.1C per decade.
2. No, there is no reason to consider a steady increase in temperature due to AGW thru 2035 of 0.18C per decade.

Gee, that was easy.

Now, I note that you called sidestep when I asked this question (or maybe it was sidestep at Fred's comment), but in either case what is your answer to this.
Several people wrote in and said that with the hundreds or thousands of headlines they'd seen in 1998 and thereafter claiming that 1998 was "a tipping point" because it was so hot, eg., 1998 was used as evidence of global warming by the pro-AGW crowd, what was wrong with the "Anti-AGW" crowd using 1998 also?
​
Well, well, well now. What is your opinion of that?
​
Well, what is your opinion of that?

Now, the "You Bet" thread. Yes, it is 'entertaining' also. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/

I'd like to make a point. If Tamino is so sure about his analysis of climate as being comprised of a "0.18C per decade upward trend plus random noise" as depicted in the former discussion, then he should have no problem with carrying that out to a 2 sigma or 3 sigma certainty level and making a bet. But he says -
I’ll also emphasize that I’m not interested in betting money on it.
​
Either he doesn't believe in betting at better than house odds, or he isn't quite so sure of the premises behind his "statistical analysis".

But we knew those premises were quite weak, didn't we?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom