R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I meant here on CAF, Pardner. The proponents of MMGW theory on CAF are pretty much all into CO2 emissions as the cause.
- Status
E
Ender
Guest
That was not actually an attack on scientists but an observation about the qualifications of many of those commenting on global warming. I think this comment is a better fit for your objection.*Sheesh! Now the WSJ folks are the new climate experts. What’s next? *(lynnvinc)
Dismissing an argument based on who makes it rather than the quality of the argument itself is an indication of the weakness of ones position.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
If the following statement is correct then your assertion is false. *the truth of falsity of any scientific claim can only be evaluated on it’s own terms – and not via its association with other ideas or the character of its proponents *(RealClimate)
Oh, but the source is a blog so I guess we have to ignore it.
But wait, it’s a blog you cite…does that mean it’s back in again? But if it’s acceptable again then your dismissal of other blogs is unacceptable. It’s all so confusing.
Ender
R
revert_jen
Guest
Anyone can come up with a model to explain the past. Someone has to be a bit clever to come up with a model that, given the data available on a past date, could predict the present. But if anyone wants me to believe in models that are supposed to predict the future, they’re going to have to do that. And they’re going to have to do it more reliably than an astrologer. (“You’re going to meet a tall, dark, stranger,” vs. “You’re going to see an increase in storm activity.”) If you get at least half of the predictions wrong, the other half doesn’t prove anything except the law of averages.
The failure of models doesn’t mean that MMGW isn’t happening, but it does mean that the models have not proved reliable guides, and should not be used to shape public policy.
–Jen
E
Ender
Guest
You make these statements as if the debate is settled, the facts are in, and this is as clear cut as saying the sun will rise in the morning. In fact, however, there is significant debate about this question and no particularly good reason to accept your assertions.* Various scientists within NOAA have differing opinions about global warming’s impact on hurricanes and there is no official NOAA policy on the topic. Varying ideas on an issue often mean that** it is a science in progress with no definitive answers**.** That is certainly the case with regards to global warming and hurricanes.***
aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_hurricanes/index.html
This is from a presentation by Christopher Landsea, the Science and Operations Officer at the National Weather Service’s National Hurricane Center in Miami, FL. He has published 33 peer-reviewed papers on the topics of the Atlantic hurricane database, hurricane changes over time, and the effects of man-made global warming on hurricanes.
I point this out not to prove that hurricane activity has not increased, but to demonstrate that your assertion that it has is opinion, not fact, and it is an opinion not shared by many of the top scientists working in the field, and even NOAA itself does not accept your position. You may believe it but your confidence in that belief is misplaced.
Ender
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-10/no-named-storms-first-time-since-1992-at-hurricane-peak.html
Some items from the linked article:
"Since 1995, the basin has been in the midst of what is called the warm phase of the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation. This means it has been warmer than normal and the chances for weaker storms to grow stronger are enhanced, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It has also marked an era where more storms have formed. For example, 21 storms got names from 1992 to 1994 and then in 1995, 19 systems reached that threshold.
…
The warm phase often lasts 20 to 40 years. This is the 20th season since it began."
…
“Bell said the Atlantic is a little cooler than it has been in past years and if a shift began, it might look something like the current year.”
…
"Last year produced 13 named storms, one more than the 30-year average, yet the power of those systems was so weak it is considered a relatively quiet season.
Using an index called the accumulated cyclone energy, 2014 has only had 45 percent of the activity that it should have produced by this time, Klotzbach said.
But we are still ahead of the ridiculously quiet season of 2013,” he said. “I would say that we need at least one more quiet year to really be convinced that we are heading into an inactive era.”
Until then, keep an eye out, because while 1992 produced only six storms, one of them was Andrew, one of the most destructive hurricanes to ever hit the U.S."
When you make dramatic predictions which aren’t correct it undermines your credibility. Note, many have stated and continue to state the Global Warming will increase weather extremes-- and that hasn’t happened. In fact, the opposite is true. Even in the midst (or perhaps end since the water was cooler this year in the Atlantic) of a warming period where we would expect increased activity-- we have lower activity. With the occasional anomolous year. Instead of sticking to science, proponents wander into speculative predictions.
S
sps49
Guest
Exactly correct. The MMGW’s have some climate model attribution problems (natural variability vs anthropogenic effects) to overcome before they may use them for policy shaping.
C
chris_colose
Guest
It’s worth noting that hurricane activity is not a central component of our future predictions (I already outlined some of the core items behind what people are arguing), and “extreme events” come in many flavors. The things that affect TCs, tornados, mid lat storms, drought, etc (and the frequency or intensity of these) are all different. Like everything else though, any description of changes in these things have to consider the long term statistics, not what happened this year.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
I know that climate skeptics are extremely concerned about harm to birds (e.g., from wind farms), and for some that is THE issue of why we should not get onto alt energy and we should not accept that AGW is happening. So here is a report of concern to the bird-lovers:
“Climate Change Could Wipe Out Half Of All North American Bird Species”
redorbit.com/news/science/1113230552/american-birds-on-the-brink-due-to-global-warming-091014/
stateofthebirds.org/2014%20SotB_FINAL_low-res.pdf
“Climate Change Could Wipe Out Half Of All North American Bird Species”
redorbit.com/news/science/1113230552/american-birds-on-the-brink-due-to-global-warming-091014/
stateofthebirds.org/2014%20SotB_FINAL_low-res.pdf
G
gilliam
Guest
Uh, did everyone actually read the report cited in the articles? Aridland birds continue to show the steepest declines, while coastal and wetland bird populations continue to increase. Here is what it says about Aridland habitats (emphasis mine):
The aridlands indicator for 17 obligate birds—breeding birds of desert,
sagebrush, and chaparral habitats in the West—is the most steeply declining of all habitat indicators, with an overall loss of 46% since 1968. Just since 2009 this indicator dropped 6%, extending a nearly continuous 44-year decline. **Habitat loss and fragmentation due to residential and energy development are the most consistent and widespread threats. **Longterm habitat degradation from unsustainable land use,
invasions of non-native grasses, and encroachment by trees and shrubs also play significant (and underappreciated) roles in the decline. These negative effects have been exacerbated over the past decade by severe drought, creating extremely difficult conditions for aridland birds such as Bendire’s and Le Conte’s thrashers, the two fastest declining species in the aridlands indicator.
Rangewide grassland bird conservation depends on conservation provisions in the Farm Bill. For example, Henslow’s Sparrow and Upland Sandpiper (which benefit from the Conservation Reserve Program and grazing management on working grasslands, respectively) have responded positively to the many millions of grassland
acres put back on the land since 1985. Continued support for Farm Bill conservation programs is needed to lock in these gains.
So they want Airedland habitats protected like wetlands. Want to help the birds? Tell the rich cats in Calif. and Colorado and Santa Fe to take down their houses from the high chaparral areas and give the land back to the birds for nesting.
stateofthebirds.org/2014%20SotB_FINAL_low-res.pdf
By the way, here in AZ eagles are doing just fine, thank you.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Wow, this is so weird that no one here has heard of Typhoon Haiyan (Nov 2013).
The larger picture is that AGW will lead to increased sea-surface temps. High sea-surface temps are a necessary (tho not sufficient) cause for hurricanes, AKA typhoons, cyclones, etc.
Why is it that no one really cares what happens in countries like the Philippines? Maybe secretly or subconsciously they know they have been contributing to AGW and to such consequences so they just don’t even want to acknowledge or think about the devastation.
youtube.com/watch?v=vEfY6mKeyIs
RE any quiescence in hurricanes now or recently in the US, perhaps we can look at how the deeper oceans have sucked down the heat from the surface cutting out that necessary factor…but I don’t expect that will go on forever.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Hi Jen,
They always run their climate models backwards over actual observations to see if they have good skill or fit to reality before shooting them into the future. This is nothing to be ashamed of, but a necessary testing of the models.
Also they continue to improve on the models, including more and more factors and adding more and more computing power. It is not at all surprising that models of today can outperform those of the 1980s. That’s just progress.
S
sps49
Guest
Perhaps if you removed yourself from that echo chamber you inhabit, get some fresh air and ideas, you’ll discover that people do care.
T
Theo520
Guest
Well said Jen,
The MMGW fanboys/girls pretend they have consensus, when in fact scientists have only narrowed the range from between 1-9. Though measurement has it closer to 1, the media stories use the 4-9 scenarios.
http://static.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Climate_Sensitivity_500.jpg
E
Ender
Guest
You are immune to facts. There is no scientific justification for claiming that hurricanes have increased in either strength or numbers. It is an opinion not supported by the data.
“Sucking down the heat” is an assertion without a theory that explains how warm fluids sink instead of rise like they do in the rest of nature. This is like the resurrection of phlogiston to explain the inexplicable.
Ender
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
I have seen concern for birds mentioned. I have not seen where people have claimed it is “THE issue of why we should not get into alt energy.” The argument being made by skeptics is that the market, not the government and its cronies, who should pick winners and losers.
E
estesbob
Guest
We are forecast to get up to two inches of snow tonight. of course I know an individual weather event doesn’t prove or disprove AGW unless it bolsters the argument in support of.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Bob it’s climate CHANGE. Sheesh!
- Status