« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 45 46 [47] 48 49 ... 92

Author Topic: Climate Change  (Read 28879 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #690 on: May 28, 2019, 08:39:14 pm »
Quote from: TimG on May 28, 2019, 08:24:20 pm
You need to learn to read. There is no trend in strong tornados ad the reporting of small tornados has increases which creates the illusion of an increase. A random increase in one year or two years is not climate. It is random variation in weather that means nothing. Claiming that it means something is as dumb as saying there is no global warming because we have a period of record cold temperatures in the winter.

The increase in tornadoes has increased more in the last 8 years since records have been kept. Just a blip maybe?
Logged
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #691 on: May 28, 2019, 08:47:28 pm »
Quote from: Omni on May 28, 2019, 08:39:14 pm
The increase in tornadoes has increased more in the last 8 years since records have been kept. Just a blip maybe?
The trend is down or non-existent for larger tornados. The data makes that clear. If smaller tornadoes increase then it is more likely due to increased reporting due to better technology and more awareness. If it was climate related then there would be a trend in all sizes of tornados.
Logged

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #692 on: May 28, 2019, 09:03:27 pm »
Quote from: TimG on May 28, 2019, 08:47:28 pm
The trend is down or non-existent for larger tornados. The data makes that clear. If smaller tornadoes increase then it is more likely due to increased reporting due to better technology and more awareness. If it was climate related then there would be a trend in all sizes of tornados.

The reporting comes from the people who were in the path of those storms. Do you think people weren't able to see those storms years ago?
Logged
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2956
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #693 on: May 29, 2019, 06:58:44 am »
Quote from: TimG on May 28, 2019, 06:53:54 pm
According to theory warming reduces the differential between the poles and tropics which should reduce the the number of storm events. The increase heat may increase the intensity of the storms that do form but there should be fewer of them. More importantly, the actual data supports the theory since the number of storms has been decreasing across the globe, unfortunately, in any given year there will be higher than normal activity in some part of the globe which the media and alarmists hype because they have witches to burn but that does mean there is an actual increase in the average.


Why the truncated data and from a source like "policlimate" and Ryan Maue, who engages in scientific fraud on a regular basis, publishing opinion pieces for the CATO Institute?

Here's longer-term data from the Environmental Protection Agency, who dare I say, has far more credibility than your highly discredited blogger friend.



(Source, including other indicators: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-tropical-cyclone-activity)

Why it's almost as if Ryan Maue truncated his data because it shows the opposite of what long-term data shows. It's almost like he's committing data fraud by changing the sampling frame to suit his climate-denier narrative that is discredited by scientists who are more interested in research than politics.

Stop drinking the god damned Kool-Aid, Tim. If you were half as skeptical about bloggers as you were about the actual science, you would understand how stupid you look posting discredited opinions.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2019, 07:00:23 am by cybercoma »
Logged
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #694 on: May 29, 2019, 09:00:00 am »
Quote from: cybercoma on May 29, 2019, 06:58:44 am
Here's longer-term data from the Environmental Protection Agency, who dare I say, has far more credibility than your highly discredited blogger friend.
1) Typical alarmist BS to claim that anyone who does not adher to every aspect of your alarmist cult is "discredited". In this case he is a meteorologist PhD and publishes in the peer reviewed literature: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2011GL047711
He is certainly qualified to comment on the topic even if he uses some new-fangled technology to communicate which seems make you choke on your dentures.

Here is a post that compares other contributions to the peer reviewed literature that shows roughly the same story
https://judithcurry.com/2019/02/17/hurricanes-climate-change-detection/

Quote
The relatively short historical record of hurricane activity, and the even shorter record from the satellite era, is not sufficient to assess whether recent hurricane activity is unusual for during the current interglacial period. Results from paleotempestology analyses in the North Atlantic at a limited number of locations indicate that the current heightened activity is not unusual, with a ‘hyperactive period’ apparently occurring from 3400 to 1000 years before present.

Global hurricane activity since 1970 shows no significant trends in overall frequency, although there is some evidence of increasing numbers of major hurricanes and of an increase in the percentage of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes.

In the North Atlantic, all measures of hurricane activity have increased since 1970, although comparably high levels of activities also occurred during the 1950’s and 1960’s.

2) The EPA is a completely politicized agency and has no more claim to objectivity than the Cato institute so it is not clear why you think your source has more credibility.

3) Your graph show no obvious trend hurricane count over 100 years. The bump at the end is hardly enough to reverse the downward trend so it is not clear what point you think you are making.

BTW - your immediate attempt to label a scientist who publishes in the peer reviewed literature as "discredited" is a perfect example of the hostile climate for contrarian academics. This kind of attitude simply protects the group think dominates the field and leaves us with no way to know what is real and what is an illusion created by academics that are unwilling to look at ideas that undermine their pre-determined conclusions.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2019, 09:05:15 am by TimG »
Logged

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2956
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #695 on: May 29, 2019, 09:58:15 am »
Quote from: TimG on May 29, 2019, 09:00:00 am
He is certainly qualified to comment on the topic even if he uses some new-fangled technology to communicate which seems make you choke on your dentures.
The reason he uses the "newfangled technology" is because his trash can't pass peer review because it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Something you would recognize if, as I said, you were HALF as skeptical about bloggers as scientists.

Quote from: TimG on May 29, 2019, 09:00:00 am
Here is a post that compares other contributions to the peer reviewed literature that shows roughly the same story
https://judithcurry.com/2019/02/17/hurricanes-climate-change-detection/
Judith Curry, eh?

You know my post is from the EPA themselves, right?

Quote from: TimG on May 29, 2019, 09:00:00 am
2) The EPA is a completely politicized agency and has no more claim to objectivity than the Cato institute so it is not clear why you think your source has more credibility.
If you're claiming the CATO Institute has the same credibility as the EPA, then there's no discussing anything with you because you're not capable of reason.

Quote from: TimG on May 29, 2019, 09:00:00 am
3) Your graph show no obvious trend hurricane count over 100 years. The bump at the end is hardly enough to reverse the downward trend so it is not clear what point you think you are making.
No obvious trend to you, since you're willfully blind. But you could take half a second to click the link and read the source, which explains it if you're so confused by what you're looking it. Even if it showed "no trend," that's still a very different narrative than the pile of trash you're peddling.

Quote from: TimG on May 29, 2019, 09:00:00 am
BTW - your immediate attempt to label a scientist who publishes in the peer reviewed literature as "discredited" is a perfect example of the hostile climate for contrarian academics. This kind of attitude simply protects the group think dominates the field and leaves us with no way to know what is real and what is an illusion created by academics that are unwilling to look at ideas that undermine their pre-determined conclusions.
I label him as discredited because he's lacking credibility, as in the things he says are proven to be lies and distortions. Again, if you showed half as much skepticism for the bloggers and deniers as you do for the scientific consensus, you wouldn't be peddling sources that have zero credibility.
Logged

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #696 on: May 29, 2019, 02:41:02 pm »
Quote from: cybercoma on May 29, 2019, 09:58:15 am
The reason he uses the "newfangled technology" is because his trash can't pass peer review because it doesn't stand up to scrutiny
Except he is published in the peer reviewed journals so you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

Quote from: cybercoma on May 29, 2019, 09:58:15 am
You know my post is from the EPA themselves, right?
If you're claiming the CATO Institute has the same credibility as the EPA, then there's no discussing anything with you because you're not capable of reason.
If you think government agencies have no bias then you are the one not capable of reason. Government agencies have their own biases, prejudices and preconceptions that are a function of the type of people who choose to be career bureaucrats. To suggest otherwise is absurd. The Cato institute is biased but at least everyone acknowledges the bias.

Quote from: cybercoma on May 29, 2019, 09:58:15 am
I label him as discredited because he's lacking credibility, as in the things he says are proven to be lies and distortions.
Wrong. You claim that that the things he says are lies/distortions but that is just your *opinion* coloured by your own biases. It is not a fact. The bottom line is there is no credible evidence that climate is having a measurable effect on the number of hurricanes. Perhaps there will be evidence in the future but we will have to see.
Logged

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #697 on: May 29, 2019, 02:49:54 pm »
Quote from: TimG on May 29, 2019, 02:41:02 pm
Except he is published in the peer reviewed journals so you clearly don't know what you are talking about.
If you think government agencies have no bias then you are the one not capable of reason. Government agencies have their own biases, prejudices and preconceptions that are a function of the type of people who choose to be career bureaucrats. To suggest otherwise is absurd. The Cato institute is biased but at least everyone acknowledges the bias.
Wrong. You claim that that the things he says are lies/distortions but that is just your *opinion* coloured by your own biases. It is not a fact. The bottom line is there is no credible evidence that climate is having a measurable effect on the number of hurricanes. Perhaps there will be evidence in the future but we will have to see.

Um no, we already see.
Or at least actual scientists do.

The IPCC AR5 presents a strong body of scientific evidence that most of the global warming observed over the past half century is very likely due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. But what does this change mean for hurricane activity? Here, we address these questions, starting with those conclusions where we have relatively more confidence. The main text then gives more background discussion. “Detectable” change here will refer to a change that is large enough to be clearly distinguishable from the variability due to natural causes.


https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
Logged
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #698 on: May 29, 2019, 03:24:30 pm »
Quote from: Omni on May 29, 2019, 02:49:54 pm
The main text then gives more background discussion.
The text is full of caveats and waffle words despite the clear desire on the part of the authors to claim that such evidence exists.
Logged

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #699 on: May 29, 2019, 03:37:58 pm »
Quote from: TimG on May 29, 2019, 03:24:30 pm
The text is full of caveats and waffle words despite the clear desire on the part of the authors to claim that such evidence exists.

I guess we have all pretty much concluded that everything presented to you that refutes your denier claims are simply "waffle words" coming from  all 97 plus% of peer reviewed climate scientists including those crazy guys over at NOAA, you know that right wing outfit started by Richard Nixon. Oops!   
Logged
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8844
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #700 on: June 01, 2019, 06:26:20 am »
Logged
Funny Funny x 2 View List

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10253
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #701 on: June 01, 2019, 09:57:39 am »
Quote from: TimG on May 29, 2019, 03:24:30 pm
The text is full of caveats and waffle words despite the clear desire on the part of the authors to claim that such evidence exists.

You believe that the climate science (journals etc) types are compromised by activist interests.  If pro-AGW types are compromised by alarmists and research funding, and skeptics are compromised by deniers and energy companies, your stance is that the truth in the climate field is fundamentally compromised and is therefore unknowable.

So we should stop this discussion right now.
Logged
"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8844
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #702 on: June 01, 2019, 10:04:32 am »
Quote from: TimG on May 29, 2019, 02:41:02 pm
Except he is published in the peer reviewed journals so you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

wait, what? Aren't you the guy who perpetually denigrates peer-review... always stating that it can't be trusted... that "theSciencyMan" is always keepin' the "skepticMan" down! Isn't that you?
Logged
Like Like x 2 View List

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #703 on: June 01, 2019, 01:15:23 pm »
Quote from: Poonlight Graham on June 01, 2019, 09:57:39 am
You believe that the climate science (journals etc) types are compromised by activist interests.  If pro-AGW types are compromised by alarmists and research funding, and skeptics are compromised by deniers and energy companies, your stance is that the truth in the climate field is fundamentally compromised and is therefore unknowable.

So we should stop this discussion right now.
PG:
'Only the TimGod speaks the truth'!  ...  Lol

Oh wait! He's got competition ...
As Pope Francis called on global financial leaders to help keep dirty energy in the ground, the United Nations chief said Tuesday that fossil fuel subsidies amount to "using taxpayers' money... to destroy the world."

"Climate disruption is upon us, and it is progressing faster than our efforts to address it," said U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres in Vienna at the climate-focused R20 Austrian World Summit.

While near-daily global disasters including floods, droughts, and wildfires make clear that the impacts of the climate crisis are already occurring, Guterres said, "there is a silver lining to the looming cloud."

That's because "if we do what we must to combat climate change, the benefits for societies around the world would be profound," he said, pointing to "cleaner water and air" and "reduced biodiversity loss."

But the scope of the task at hand is huge, explained Guterres, as it necessitates a total transformation of all aspects of society.

"What is needed for effective mitigation and improved resilience," he said, "is quite simply a rapid and deep change in how we do business, how we generate power, how we build cities, and how we feed the world."

Another key change, said Guterres, is to stop using taxpayer funds to prop up the coal, oil, and gas industries.

"We need to tax pollution, not people, and to end subsidies for fossil fuels," said Guterres. He also debunked the wrongful assumption by some that fossil fuel subsidies improve people's lives.

"There is nothing more wrong than that," he said. "What we are doing is using taxpayers' money—which means our money—to boost hurricanes, to spread droughts, to melt glaciers, to bleach corals. In one word—to destroy the world."

"As taxpayers," continued Guterres, "I believe we would like to see our money back rather than to see our money used to destroy the world."

Now waiting for the wrath of the TimGod .... 3 2 1 ... !!!  Lol
« Last Edit: June 01, 2019, 01:18:09 pm by Granny »
Logged

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #704 on: June 01, 2019, 01:47:09 pm »
Quote from: Poonlight Graham on June 01, 2019, 09:57:39 am
your stance is that the truth in the climate field is fundamentally compromised and is therefore unknowable.
That is more or less what I am saying. However, the basic physics of GHGs and the contribution of humans to CO2 emissions is well supported enough that we don't need to be concerned about the systemic biases. This means CO2 emissions are a potential problem that we should talk about doing something about when it makes economic sense. Unfortunately, the debate has been polarized by people that push all kinds of irrational actions because they have beeen persuaded by alarmists peddling fantasies and hypotheticals as if they are foregone conclusions.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2019, 01:48:58 pm by TimG »
Logged
Agree Agree x 1 Dumb Dumb x 2 View List
Pages: 1 ... 45 46 [47] 48 49 ... 92
« previous next »