Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[rtwjunkie]

My apologies as well! I seconded the motion a page back to re-focus on the scientists throwing out data and whether it is acceptable.

 

[Schmuckley]

Global warming is a sham.Created by the UN to make you poorer.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Global warming is a sham.Created by the UN to make you poorer.

Again, off subject.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

And you stated directly ("desertification") that precipitation may not be increasing, but displacing. Some places are getting wetter while other places are getting drier; however, distinguishing this effect from el nino and el nina isn't exactly plausible so, I stand by what I quoted from Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory.

Let's take your statement to its logical extreme, and test the voracity of the claim.

Tomorrow precipitation in North America stops. Asia picks up the slack, and experiences all the precipitation that North America has lost. You've got a net 0 change in precipitation. As a result, North America becomes a desert, and Asia floods constantly. By the reasoning you've provided, this is not climate change. By observation, it is climate change.


I know the example is extreme, but arguing anything less is arguing degrees of an absolute. You could rightly claim I am only looking at the extreme, but it takes that to make my point. A 10% decrease here and a 10% increase there is petty, and arguably a weather pattern. Turning into a desert, as parts of China are doing right now, is that taken to its extreme. It is a demonstrable truth. How does a temporary weather pattern, like el nino or la nina, explain such a permanent change?



As an FYI, if I were you I'd have called me out with California. Current theories are that changes in evaporation have shifted the jet stream, which is why California is experiencing the droughts it has been. Arguably, that evaporation rate cannot be explained by a minor shift in temperatures, so the complexity of climate change is beyond current modelling. There is no answer from the climate change supporters on this issue, that doesn't require a belief that its man made climate change. As I'm not sold on that theory, I'd have been put into a hard place to answer without violating my own beliefs. Food for thought.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Tomorrow precipitation in North America stops. Asia picks up the slack, and experiences all the precipitation that North America has lost. You've got a net 0 change in precipitation. As a result, North America becomes a desert, and Asia floods constantly. By the reasoning you've provided, this is not climate change. By observation, it is climate change.

Never said it wasn't climate change. I've said numerous times in this thread that the climate is always changing. Arizona getting flooding (literally 15 hours ago) is a prime example of that. You were talking about incidence and intensity of severe weather events and there is little to no empirical evidence to support that claim and much to the contrary. Weather patterns may be shifting which is translating to climate change but the aggregate does not show incidence and intensity changing, only location (displacement). You even supported that by mentioning South Carolina getting hit by a "100 year hurricane." Let's throw New York and New Jersey into that same pile having been hit by a major storm a few years ago that put New York City under several feet of water. These storms typically hit the gulf but changes in the Atlantic cause these storms to track north more often than they used to.

A 10% decrease here and a 10% increase there is petty, and arguably a weather pattern.

Weather over time is climate.

Oh, that 10% from Geophysics is what they modeled as change from a few years ago to 2100. They aren't claiming a sudden change (not implying you suggested that, just making sure that's clear).

How does a temporary weather pattern, like el nino or la nina, explain such a permanent change?

http://www.elnino.noaa.gov/lanina_new_faq.html

Q. Is there such a thing as "normal", aside from El Niño and La Niña?*

A. Over the long-term record, sea-surface temperatures in the central and eastern tropical Pacific diverge from normal in a roughly bell-curve fashion, with El Niño and La Niña at the tails of the curve. Some researchers argue there are only two states, El Niño and non-El Niño, while others believe either El Niño or La Niña is always present to a greater or lesser degree. According to one expert, NCAR's Kevin Trenberth, El Niños were present 31% of the time and La Niñas 23% of the time from 1950 to 1997, leaving about 46% of the period in a neutral state. The frequency of El Niños has increased in recent decades, a shift being studied for its possible relationship to global climate change.

Q. What impacts do El Niño and La Niña have on tornadic activity across the country?

A. Since a strong jet stream is an important ingredient for severe weather, the position of the jet stream determines the regions more likely to experience tornadoes.

Contrasting El Niño and La Niña winters, the jet stream over the United States is considerably different. During El Niño the jet stream is oriented from west to east over the northern Gulf of Mexico and northern Florida. Thus this region is most susceptible to severe weather. During La Niña the jet stream extends from the central Rockies east- northeastward to the eastern Great Lakes. Thus severe weather is likely to be further north and west during La Niña than El Niño.

Arguably, that evaporation rate cannot be explained by a minor shift in temperatures, so the complexity of climate change is beyond current modelling.

I wholly agree with that and most skeptics do too. The models have generally been inaccurate and the "pause" from 2003-2010 is demonstrable proof of that. That happened hot on the heels of the "global warming" controversy booming with Al Gore making a ton of noise. None of the models suggested there wouldn't be any average warming in that period yet that is exactly what transpired.


If you haven't noticed, I'm not squarely on either side. There are facts which I can't deny (CO2 rising, NOx rising, CH4 rising) but the theories and conjecture (e.g. frequency/intensity of storms) that is generated from those facts leave much to be desired. I have faith in historic records; not future guesswork.

 

[64K]

It's been posted on this thread from several people with links, myself included, that the Earth cycles through warm periods and ice ages naturally before humans had the ability to impact the climate very much at all. I think all that the scientists can really say is that humans are contributing to the warming this time.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I think all that the scientists can really say is that humans are contributing to the warming this time.

I generally agree but the wording is too liberal. I'd say the opposite which can hardly be argued against: "all that the scientists can really say is that human activity is not cooling the planet." Merely by living, our metabolic rate causes us to give off a lot of body heat. The cumulative effect of this is obvious in cramped rooms with a lot of people and inadequate cooling getting hot fast. Additionally, the byproduct of almost all industrial processes is heat.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

Never said it wasn't climate change. I've said numerous times in this thread that the climate is always changing. Arizona getting flooding (literally 15 hours ago) is a prime example of that. You were talking about incidence and intensity of severe weather events and there is little to no empirical evidence to support that claim and much to the contrary. Weather patterns may be shifting which is translating to climate change but the aggregate does not show incidence and intensity changing, only location (displacement). You even supported that by mentioning South Carolina getting hit by a "100 year hurricane." Let's throw New York and New Jersey into that same pile having been hit by a major storm a few years ago that put New York City under several feet of water. These storms typically hit the gulf but changes in the Atlantic cause these storms to track north more often than they used to.



Weather over time is climate.

Oh, that 10% from Geophysics is what they modeled as change from a few years ago to 2100. They aren't claiming a sudden change (not implying you suggested that, just making sure that's clear).



http://www.elnino.noaa.gov/lanina_new_faq.html



I wholly agree with that and most skeptics do too. The models have generally been inaccurate and the "pause" from 2003-2010 is demonstrable proof of that. That happened hot on the heels of the "global warming" controversy booming with Al Gore making a ton of noise. None of the models suggested there wouldn't be any average warming in that period yet that is exactly what transpired.


If you haven't noticed, I'm not squarely on either side. There are facts which I can't deny (CO2 rising, NOx rising, CH4 rising) but the theories and conjecture (e.g. frequency/intensity of storms) that is generated from those facts leave much to be desired. I have faith in historic records; not future guesswork.

I thoroughly don't understand your point.

It seems like we're agreeing on some of the fundamental issues, yet this particular quote is where I lose the train of thought:

The images on this link are dead but the message is still there:
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/extreme.asp
Reported tornadoes have gone up but that may be entirely unrelated to climate (e.g. the installation of Doppler RADAR); however, the severity of tornadoes not increasing.
Precipitation may be increasing but could easily be caused by pollution rather than climate. Vapor tends to condense around particulate matter and that's undeniably increased since the industrial age.

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes
"It is premature to conclude that human activities--and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming--have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. " Even the most liberal models of precipitation change only estimates 15% more precipitation from storms.

I have huge doubts about these models because, for example, look at this year. Each tropical storm may bring more moisture but there really hasn't been many. In the aggregate, they still give a liberal estimate (based on models) of 10% at most.

Put bluntly, this particular alarmism hasn't panned out.
...
You say this like hurricanes are new. They are not and that's a risk everyone that lives on the east and south coast take. Hurricanes will come and they will do damage. It's inevitable; the only question is when. The same can be said of earthquakes on the west coast and tornadoes in the Midwest.

It was my interpretation that at this point you were arguing that severe weather events weren't on the rise. You cited tornadoes as proof. I believe that was inadequate to cover the range of severe weather events, so I cited what people arguably pay the most attention to. Events so catastrophic as to only occur once every century, which are definitely more than that frequent in just the last two decades.

From there it was my understanding that you basically argued that the people waving their arms and calling for some sort of action were alarmists. That's where I've taken issue. While the alarmists saying the apocalypse is nigh are morons, they really aren't the majority of people. Informed people are generally raising the flag about severe weather events, which are more than anecdotally linked to climate change. Preparing for severe weather event is what politicians are not doing, under the auspices that global warming must not exist therefore severe weather shouldn't happen. That sort of short sightedness is galling, and often why people fly the banner of climate change denial.


Where exactly did my reasoning jump the tracks?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I cited tornadoes and hurricanes ("tropical cyclone activity") as proof. To a lesser extent, precipitation as well (jury is still out on that one).

Events so catastrophic as to only occur once every century, which are definitely more than that frequent in just the last two decades.

False. I quoted Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory saying that connection isn't proven and here's a quote from Weather Underground which says much the same:

Hurricane experts are divided on to what degree global warming has affected the number and intensity of hurricanes, and a recent consensus statement by 125 hurricane scientists (see below) concluded: Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point.

And have another that goes up to 2012:

While there is still lots of caterwauling about Hurricane Sandy and climate, it is telling that this new update shows that the last five years record the lowest period of landfalling hurricane intensity of any five-year period dating all the way back to 1900.

There's nothing out of the ordinary in terms of hurricane activity.

Informed people are generally raising the flag about severe weather events, which are more than anecdotally linked to climate change.

Then they are ill-"informed" because there's little to no evidence to support that.

Preparing for severe weather event is what politicians are not doing, under the auspices that global warming must not exist therefore severe weather shouldn't happen.

The first part is true but not the last part. Preparation costs money and governments are usually reactive, not proactive. They don't shore up levies and the like until after they failed--after they can't be ignored. This extends to almost everything infrastructure related and is in no way exclusive to where climate change/global warming is concerned.

That sort of short sightedness is galling, and often why people fly the banner of climate change denial.

Denial is human nature...a coping mechanism. We tell ourselves everything is okay until we know it isn't. To not do so is a sign of depression or, at bare minimum, a pessimistic outlook on life.

Where exactly did my reasoning jump the tracks?

You keep perpetuating the myth that weather is being effected by the observed 0.6C rise in global temperatures. There's little to nothing to suggest what we have witnessed (in terms of extreme weather events) is outside of normal parameters. Remember, the bulk of the observed warming is over the Arctic ice cap.

 

[SK-1]

Senator SK-1: “Mr Muir, do you believe that global warming is causing the Oceans to rise as Al Gore has said over and over?”

Mr Muir: “Of course I do. Al Gore is 100% correct.”

Senator SK-1: “Then can you tell me why Al Gore bought a $9M beachfront mansion at sea level with the proceeds of his global warming movie and not a mansion on a mountain?”

Mr Muir: “……………. silence and crickets.”... lol just lol...

And people.....A quick investigation would reveal that almost all the scientists paychecks come from governments. If they keep Lying the paychecks come in, if they tell the truth, they no longer have a job.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Almost all environmental research is conducted by governments though. Businesses would rather pay to bury environmental information than publish it.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

Senator SK-1: “Mr Muir, do you believe that global warming is causing the Oceans to rise as Al Gore has said over and over?”

Mr Muir: “Of course I do. Al Gore is 100% correct.”

Senator SK-1: “Then can you tell me why Al Gore bought a $9M beachfront mansion at sea level with the proceeds of his global warming movie and not a mansion on a mountain?”

Mr Muir: “……………. silence and crickets.”... lol just lol...

And people.....A quick investigation would reveal that almost all the scientists paychecks come from governments. If they keep Lying the paychecks come in, if they tell the truth, they no longer have a job.

By that logic then, cigarettes are good for you.

It was governmental investigations into smoking which eventually demonstrated that smoking has very real negative impacts on your health. If it followed your logic, then wouldn't the conclusion have been either smoking decreases stress, or perhaps inconclusive results that they would have found? Devil's advocate here.

In reality, you have a point. Eggs. I was party to the odd show there. One study finds eggs are healthy, the next shows they're high in bad cholesterol, and the next shows them a part of any balanced breakfast. Ironically enough, those results equated to massive investments in "independent" research grants. What's the old phrase? Money talks, but bulls*** walks.

I cited tornadoes and hurricanes ("tropical cyclone activity") as proof. To a lesser extent, precipitation as well (jury is still out on that one).


False. I quoted Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory saying that connection isn't proven and here's a quote from Weather Underground which says much the same:

And have another that goes up to 2012:

There's nothing out of the ordinary in terms of hurricane activity.


Then they are ill-"informed" because there's little to no evidence to support that.


The first part is true but not the last part. Preparation costs money and governments are usually reactive, not proactive. They don't shore up levies and the like until after they failed--after they can't be ignored. This extends to almost everything infrastructure related and is in no way exclusive to where climate change/global warming is concerned.



Denial is human nature...a coping mechanism. We tell ourselves everything is okay until we know it isn't. To not do so is a sign of depression or, at bare minimum, a pessimistic outlook on life.



You keep perpetuating the myth that weather is being effected by the observed 0.6C rise in global temperatures. There's little to nothing to suggest what we have witnessed (in terms of extreme weather events) is outside of normal parameters. Remember, the bulk of the observed warming is over the Arctic ice cap.

No, you seem to be relying heavily on single sources. The weather underground article is interesting, but it's one resource with very little backing. The fluid laboratory article is interesting, but again they are one source. I'll do you one better, and introduce a whole society of skeptics: http://www.skepticalscience.com/extreme-weather-global-warming-intermediate.htm

These skeptics have well researched, peer reviewed papers. Despite this, you'd claim that they were "misinformed." That would imply that the publishers of their papers (including meteorological societies) are either equally misinformed, or so incompetent as to print works without fact checking. I can believe it if these people published in Rolling Stone, but not when one conclusion is reached from multiple avenues of research.


I have yet to touch to rise in temperature that is "observed." You saying I'm perpetuating that myth is absolutely fallacious. Quote where I said it, and I'll gladly admit that I was incorrect. What I'm perpetuating is the idea that climate change exists, and it's happening. What I continue to say is that the BS temperature reading don't matter, because we can observe climate change qualitatively, without need for quantitative measures. I wouldn't give a crap about a 10C change if it didn't influence us, but it's causing severe weather phenomena.

We NEED to prepare for these disasters, yet instead of doing that we're bickering over whether global warming is real and exactly how much humanity has played a part in it. Who gives a flying crap? We need to make sure crap like New Orleans, New Jersey, and South Carolina are planned for. Debating anything else is telling the victims of natural disaster that they matter less than obstinacy.

If religion stands in the way of the, F*** religion. If skepticism stands in the way of this, F*** skepticism. We can all argue theory and philosophy whenever we're sure a disaster won't turn everyone into animals, fighting over what little remains after mother nature decides to show humanity that we aren't special. That is my argument.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

No, you seem to be relying heavily on single sources. The weather underground article is interesting, but it's one resource with very little backing. The fluid laboratory article is interesting, but again they are one source. I'll do you one better, and introduce a whole society of skeptics: http://www.skepticalscience.com/extreme-weather-global-warming-intermediate.htm

These skeptics have well researched, peer reviewed papers. Despite this, you'd claim that they were "misinformed." That would imply that the publishers of their papers (including meteorological societies) are either equally misinformed, or so incompetent as to print works without fact checking. I can believe it if these people published in Rolling Stone, but not when one conclusion is reached from multiple avenues of research.

Skeptical Science is ran by John Cook, the same guy that created the shame, frequently quoted "97% of climate scientists" "study" which literally only amounted to a keyword search of abstracts in one database of academic papers (by the way, Cook isn't even a "climate scientist"). It is a global warming alarmist blog and always has been. It is not a reliable source because they don't publish anything that is, ironically enough, "skeptical" of the IPCC and similar organizations that make alarmist statements. They've always been a "global warming" advocacy group. There was never any skepticism. It's a dubious domain name to try to draw in the general public that is skeptical about climate change to bombard them with pro-climate change propaganda.


Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory published the facts as we know them. They are the original, reliable source for extreme weather event collation and analysis.

You know those models The Weather Channel and pretty much every other meteorologist in the country uses to predict the path of Hurricanes? GFDL created them. Who you think I'm going to trust: the experts that are the reason you know you're the potential path of a Hurricane or an Australia activist blogger? The two are leagues apart and any comparison is insulting to GFDL and NOAA at large.

I have yet to touch to rise in temperature that is "observed." You saying I'm perpetuating that myth is absolutely fallacious. Quote where I said it, and I'll gladly admit that I was incorrect. What I'm perpetuating is the idea that climate change exists, and it's happening. What I continue to say is that the BS temperature reading don't matter, because we can observe climate change qualitatively, without need for quantitative measures. I wouldn't give a crap about a 10C change if it didn't influence us, but it's causing severe weather phenomena.

The "observed" was a statement of fact (NOAA satellites launched in the 1980s). The "myth" was about warming increasing frequency and intensity of storms which is not true. I only provided the former to make it clear what context the latter is derived from.

And your last sentence YET AGAIN perpetuates the myth. There is no clear indicators that severity/intensity of storms has anything to do with global temperature change--at least not yet.

We need to make sure crap like New Orleans, New Jersey, and South Carolina are planned for.

You know what they say about building a house on sand, right? The only legitimate solution is relocation and who is a fan of that?

As for planning, I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase "plans never survive first contact with the enemy."

 

[SK-1]

By that logic then, cigarettes are good for you.

Im sorry, are you equating Cancer and Al's lunacy? If so, I can't understand your crazy moon language. :/

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

Im sorry, are you equating Cancer and Al's lunacy? If so, I can't understand your crazy moon language. :/

No. Al Gore is an idiot, who has made millions off of nothing. I equated the researchers who sought out whether smoking causes cancer, to those seeking climate change.

Edit:
Let me reframe that. I meant to equate the statement that scientist searching for a link between cancer and cigarettes would have asked for more studies, if they could actually be bought out by industry 100% of the time.

You propose that these meteorologists have been bought out by grants, yet you see them coming to conclusions without the ever popular "more research is needed to provide adequate evidence."

Seems to be a tenuous connection, if its meant as anything more than a comment in jest.

Skeptical Science is ran by John Cook, the same guy that created the shame, frequently quoted "97% of climate scientists" "study" which literally only amounted to a keyword search of abstracts in one database of academic papers (by the way, Cook isn't even a "climate scientist"). It is a global warming alarmist blog and always has been. It is not a reliable source because they don't publish anything that is, ironically enough, "skeptical" of the IPCC and similar organizations that make alarmist statements. They've always been a "global warming" advocacy group. There was never any skepticism. It's a dubious domain name to try to draw in the general public that is skeptical about climate change to bombard them with pro-climate change propaganda.


Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory published the facts as we know them. They are the original, reliable source for extreme weather event collation and analysis.

You know those models The Weather Channel and pretty much every other meteorologist in the country uses to predict the path of Hurricanes? GFDL created them. Who you think I'm going to trust: the experts that are the reason you know you're the potential path of a Hurricane or an Australia activist blogger? The two are leagues apart and any comparison is insulting to GFDL and NOAA at large.


The "observed" was a statement of fact (NOAA satellites launched in the 1980s). The "myth" was about warming increasing frequency and intensity of storms which is not true. I only provided the former to make it clear what context the latter is derived from.

And your last sentence YET AGAIN perpetuates the myth. There is no clear indicators that severity/intensity of storms has anything to do with global temperature change--at least not yet.



You know what they say about building a house on sand, right? The only legitimate solution is relocation and who is a fan of that?

As for planning, I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase "plans never survive first contact with the enemy."

I don't give a flying crap about that website. It could be a yahoo answers page for all I care. Pay attention the the linked articles, and where they appear. I thought you'd do a bit more research, than simply dismiss work because it comes from someone you disagree with. The information source is what matters. National meteorological society, decently peer reviewed journals, and the like. That looney may have compiled them, but what matters is the sources.

I find it funny that you trust a bunch of scientists on one hand, and dismiss others out of hand. As yet you've provided no reasoning for that. Additionally, your argument about a hurricane being accurately reported by NOAA is bull. I got to be in an area where a hurricane wasn't going to make land fall, but in the middle of the storm suddenly the NOAA report changed landfall to where I was. 80 miles away from their predictions. Calling them accurate is like saying a doctor should use a hatchet on you, instead of a scalpel.



As far as houses built on sand, get the heck out of here. That is the dumbest argument anyone could make. Tell me one place on Earth not prone to natural disasters, that humanity could live. Such an argument is a waste of time, because its only answer is that you have a crap premise.

As far as planning, that's a pretty worthless way to address an issue. Let's not plan, because plans don't work 100% of the time, is the way you run a fast food restaurant. Let's plan for 80% of feasible disasters is how you run a fortune 500 company. I've never asked for a bullet proof plan, only one that lets people sleep safely. Christ, our airports add huge waits, fees, and hassel because a few planes were used as weapons. If the same care was offered to disaster planning we'd have already rebuilt New Jersey and New Orleans. Instead, New Orleans still bears the scars of its destruction, and New Jersey isn't anywhere near fully healed.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I don't give a flying crap about that website. It could be a yahoo answers page for all I care. Pay attention the the linked articles, and where they appear. I thought you'd do a bit more research, than simply dismiss work because it comes from someone you disagree with. The information source is what matters. National meteorological society, decently peer reviewed journals, and the like. That looney may have compiled them, but what matters is the sources.

It is as I described: cherry picking quotes that support alarmism. GFDL, on the other hand, provides the conclusions of 125 scientists debating about whether or not the observed extreme weather patterns had anything to do with the global change in temperature. The consensus they formed was one of indecision citing "evidence for and against." It wasn't one-sided like Skeptical Science.

I find it funny that you trust a bunch of scientists on one hand, and dismiss others out of hand. As yet you've provided no reasoning for that. Additionally, your argument about a hurricane being accurately reported by NOAA is bull. I got to be in an area where a hurricane wasn't going to make land fall, but in the middle of the storm suddenly the NOAA report changed landfall to where I was. 80 miles away from their predictions. Calling them accurate is like saying a doctor should use a hatchet on you, instead of a scalpel.

I like scientists that don't have ulterior motives. NOAA, as far as warming is concerned, has been the most neutral governmental organization I've seen on the subject. GFDL, as well as analysis of weather's effect on warming at Boulder Labs, are especially noteworthy in this regard.

80 miles is better than 800 miles. Computer models still suck but it's the best available and they originated at GFDL. I suspect the models will catch up as Boulder Labs completes it work on modelling weather over the next several decades.

As far as houses built on sand, get the heck out of here. That is the dumbest argument anyone could make. Tell me one place on Earth not prone to natural disasters, that humanity could live. Such an argument is a waste of time, because its only answer is that you have a crap premise.

Why the hostility? I can name one place for sure: Yucca Mountain. It's also a matter of probability:

•24 of these 30 systems have made landfall in the NWS Charleston, SC 'County Warning Area'. Of these, only 2 (Hugo-1989 and Gracie-1959) were major (Category 3-5) hurricanes.

It was time.

I've never asked for a bullet proof plan, only one that lets people sleep safely.

What is the National Hurricane Center? What more do you want (rhetorical question)?

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

It is as I described: cherry picking quotes that support alarmism. GFDL, on the other hand, provides the conclusions of 125 scientists debating about whether or not the observed extreme weather patterns had anything to do with the global change in temperature. The consensus they formed was one of indecision citing "evidence for and against." It wasn't one-sided like Skeptical Science.


I like scientists that don't have ulterior motives. NOAA, as far as warming is concerned, has been the most neutral governmental organization I've seen on the subject. GFDL, as well as analysis of weather's effect on warming at Boulder Labs, are especially noteworthy in this regard.

80 miles is better than 800 miles. Computer models still suck but it's the best available and they originated at GFDL. I suspect the models will catch up as Boulder Labs completes it work on modelling weather over the next several decades.



Why the hostility? I can name one place for sure: Yucca Mountain. It's also a matter of probability:

It was time.


What is the National Hurricane Center? What more do you want (rhetorical question)?

You know, I can't tell if you're trolling me, or just haven't read through everything. You link to the GFDL Wikipedia page. Jesus, that's a low bar of proof.


How about we fix that? How about we search what they've published, related to hurricanes. How about you do some reading here, because I'm sick and tired of you using a source which disagrees with your own conclusions:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes


The conclusion, in case you don't read it for yourself, is that they predict hurricanes are becoming more severe. They conclude that frequency may either decrease or remain constant, but the magnitude of rainfall will be 10-15% higher. Seems like they're agreeing with what I said.

Not enough proof? They cite three studies that propose a new model, back the model up and remove the man made warming conclusion, and then utilize current models and data to prove the voracity of the first two studies.

Seem like you cherry picked tornadoes, and I focused on hurricanes. To prove your point you'd have to prove climate change influences no severe weather phenomena, while to be right I only have to demonstrate one that climate change does impact. It isn't a fair competition, but that's why I've come to my conclusions.




As to Yucca Mountain, get serious. Fit just 10% of the world population there, and I'll admit you've got a point. For now, you've cited that location because it was deemed safe for nuclear waste storage. It took how many years to find it, and how many billions of dollars just to make it fit for that purpose? If I live in tornado alley I get tornado insurance. If I live near the ocean I get flood insurance. Our government is debating whether or not our policy should be written on parchment or paper, instead of looking at the policy terms. Instead of planning people are seeking to levy blame. Denying climate change is idiotic. Denying global warming, global cooling, or temperature models that only use data from the last decade isn't stupid. Problem is, people equate denying crappy science with denying monumental truths. The argument that all climate change can be denied, because some jerk-offs decided to falsify a portion of data is moronic. Likewise, people preying off of guilt due to man made climate change is stupid.

Reasonably, we should be able to continue the debate about where something comes from and still prepare for what it brings. In reality, it seems that every opportunity for us to mitigate severe weather disasters is hampered by those denying that such a thing is possible.



Edit:
Maybe I've yet to make myself clear. Planning for these events isn't the same as accurate reporting on them.

Do you know why New Orleans was so bad? It was because NOAA had indicated evacuations so often that people became numb to it after some time. Unsurprisingly, after the half dozenth evacuation, that turned out to be for nothing, people stop paying the huge costs to evacuate. By the time the national hurricane center competently predicted Katerina, people were trapped already.

Additionally, 80 miles versus 800 is crap accuracy for a hurricane location. 800 miles would be predicting "this will hit Florida somewhere, unless it hits a neighboring state." Being 80 miles off, to account for inaccuracies you'd have to have 160 miles of coast evacuated for safety. Let's say you only evacuate a 1 mile distance inland. 160 square miles of people to evacuate would break any emergency services, by sheer volume.

If you really want to make the argument that 80 miles off is acceptable, demonstrate the plan that accepts 160 square miles of people into the surrounding area without breaking everything. We couldn't during Sandy. We couldn't during Katerina. We are kinda there with South Carolina (largely because a state of emergency was declared more than 24 hours in advance). If you call that adequate preparation, I'm never going anywhere that relies upon your planning skills.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

You know, I can't tell if you're trolling me, or just haven't read through everything. You link to the GFDL Wikipedia page. Jesus, that's a low bar of proof.


How about we fix that? How about we search what they've published, related to hurricanes. How about you do some reading here, because I'm sick and tired of you using a source which disagrees with your own conclusions:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes

The conclusion, in case you don't read it for yourself, is that they predict hurricanes are becoming more severe. They conclude that frequency may either decrease or remain constant, but the magnitude of rainfall will be 10-15% higher. Seems like they're agreeing with what I said.

a) I already linked GFDL previously and since you didn't care to look at it, I provided a dumbed down version courtesy Wikipedia.
b) That link is the exact link I provided previously (post #744).
c) Read post #744 and subsequent posts (e.g. the 15% "liberal estimate") for a response to the rest of this post.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

a) I already linked GFDL previously and since you didn't care to look at it, I provided a dumbed down version courtesy Wikipedia.
b) That link is the exact link I provided previously (post #744).
c) Read post #744 and subsequent posts (e.g. the 15% "liberal estimate") for a response to the rest of this post.

Post 759.

lilhasselhoffer said: ↑
Informed people are generally raising the flag about severe weather events, which are more than anecdotally linked to climate change.

Then they are ill-"informed" because there's little to no evidence to support that.



Square that for me. Your own example, of informed people, proves me right. Explain your comment. More importantly, include the whole quote rather than mining it for your ends.

• It is premature to conclude that human activities--and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming--have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are model-estimated changes with considerable uncertainty (e.g., aerosol effects).
• Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.
• There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclone in some basins—an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones.
• Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day ones, with a model-projected increase of about 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center.

1) Green house gasses released by humans cannot be directly related to climate change. We're on the same page here.
2) 2-11% increase in intensity on average. This is what I said, but you continue to deny.
3) We could have a slight decrease, or stay with the same number of severe storms.
4) 10-15% greater rainfall within 100 km.


Let's agree that the global warming part of this is BS. The entire rest of the statement agrees that more severe storms are predicted, and it has direct relations to shifts in climate. What is your defense, when the article you quoted is against you?


So we're clear, I had read earlier when you linked the article, but it just now dawned on me to defeat you with your own support. It was an oversight. When you started to just link to Wikipedia, I found it an insult to the factual basis of your argument. Your support being wikipedia is, let's be fair, equivalent to having no factual support.




Edit:
Dang it. Changed instance of "sever" to severe.

Edit:
Maybe I haven't been clear. I'm not arguing that people caused global warming. I'm arguing that climate change is a real thing. That distinction may be where our arguments are differing.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

2) The 2-11% number comes from IPCC, not GFDL. Note how GFDL frames it using probability ("likely," "would," "assuming").
3) Note the lack of alarmism.
4) Like #2, note the use of probability ("likely," "model-projected").

They never make the claim the models are correct. It's simply their best educated guess which makes sense because more heat should translate to more moisture which, in turn, should translate to more fuel for tropical storms but as noted by #1, there's no proof of it yet.

This particular article only talks about tropical storms. It says nothing to the other types of severe weather which, for the time being, agree with GFDL that there's no evidence to support the idea that intensity/frequency is increasing.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

2) The 2-11% number comes from IPCC, not GFDL. Note how GFDL frames it using probability ("likely," "would," "assuming").
3) Note the lack of alarmism.
4) Like #2, note the use of probability ("likely," "model-projected").

They never make the claim the models are correct. It's simply their best educated guess which makes sense because more heat should translate to more moisture which, in turn, should translate to more fuel for tropical storms but as noted by #1, there's no proof of it yet.

This particular article only talks about tropical storms. It says nothing to the other types of severe weather which, for the time being, agree with GFDL that there's no evidence to support the idea that intensity/frequency is increasing.

I can respect that the GFDL is skeptical about the IPCC. Personally, I think we can agree that the IPCC is less scientific and more alarmist crap. At the same time, they indicate that a shift in climate will directly lead to more severe hurricanes. Hurricanes are a weather phenomena. It therefore must be conceded that more extreme weather events are linked to climate change.

I agree that human causation research is crap, and draws broad conclusions on very little data.
I agree that tornadoes demonstrably don't yet show a marked increase in intensity.
At the same time as I agree to these conclusions, I admit that I'm being obtuse intentionally. I've said that climate change is linked to more severe weather, and my qualification only requires one positive example to be true. The counter point must therefore be that climate doesn't influence weather phenomena severity, a substantially more difficult proof that we likely don't have enough data to do thoroughly. When you set the terms of the discussion, they are often unfair to the opposing point.



As far as the lack of alarmism, let's unpack that statement. The GFDL is skeptical of the IPCC, but still uses their data. If they had sufficient reason to doubt their data, then utilizing it would be astoundingly irresponsible. Every scientist understands GIGO, so why would a respectable scientist even debase themselves with garbage data?

We'll forego this particular study for a moment. How about we look at other studies from the GFDL:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/news-app/s...g-2013-a-u-s-focused-analysis/menu./sec./home.
-Droughts in the Midwest in 2013 are at least partially blamed upon climate changing, with a focus on human causation
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/news-app/story.108
-Changes in Pacific wind patterns are at least partially to blame for drought, and a depression of the average global temperature
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/news-app/s...nhouse-gases-and-ozone-levels/menu./sec./home.
-Observed decreases in precipitation cannot be accounted for with natural variation, and are thus attributable to human caused sources.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/news-app/s...-of-the-south-asian-monsoon/menu.no/sec./home.
-Human caused climate change has demonstrably decreased the average intensity of monsoons in Asia.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/news-app/s...e-of-anthropogenic-aerosols/menu.no/sec./home.
-The Indian monsoon season is demonstrably shifting earlier, beyond natural variation, due to human caused events.



That's just the first two pages of their highlighted research.

Tell me again, how the GFDL is proving that climate change has no influence on severe weather phenomena. Tell me while somehow factoring out drought, monsoons, and hurricanes. If you can still argue your point, despite the data you yourself seem quick to cite, then I'll stop arguing. Continuing to argue with someone, who cannot change their opinions based upon the overwhelming evidence they themselves provide, is arguing with a brick wall. I'd be more tactful if my source was the GFDL, but they weren't. You gave them to me, and said they support your opinions.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

At the same time, they indicate that a shift in climate will could directly lead to more severe hurricanes.

FTFY There is evidence pointing in both directions right now; hence, inconclusive.

We'll forego this particular study for a moment. How about we look at other studies from the GFDL:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/news-app/s...g-2013-a-u-s-focused-analysis/menu./sec./home.
-Droughts in the Midwest in 2013 are at least partially blamed upon climate changing, with a focus on human causation
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/news-app/story.108
-Changes in Pacific wind patterns are at least partially to blame for drought, and a depression of the average global temperature
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/news-app/s...nhouse-gases-and-ozone-levels/menu./sec./home.
-Observed decreases in precipitation cannot be accounted for with natural variation, and are thus attributable to human caused sources.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/news-app/s...-of-the-south-asian-monsoon/menu.no/sec./home.
-Human caused climate change has demonstrably decreased the average intensity of monsoons in Asia.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/news-app/s...e-of-anthropogenic-aerosols/menu.no/sec./home.
-The Indian monsoon season is demonstrably shifting earlier, beyond natural variation, due to human caused events.

I take it you didn't read any of these. Example:

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/news-app/story.108
By modifying the winds in the models to reproduce the observed winds only in the tropical Pacific, the authors show that these changing winds can drive both the hiatus in global warming and drought conditions over the southwestern U.S. (see figure). If the observed wind changes are a result of natural variability, this suggests that both the hiatus and the drought over the southwestern U.S. are the product of natural variability of the climate system.

GFDL fundamentally does models and they try to make various models line up with what was observed. Every article you linked has varying degrees of probability written into it. They describe what they simulate, not necessarily what actually transpired--that's for NOAA to do.

It should be noted that the droughts have largely ended since publication of that article (unless your name is California):
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/

You can look back at 2013 on this page:
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/MapsAndData/ChangeMaps.aspx

I'm sure GFDL is very interested in that remarkable shift from east of the Rockies to west of the Rockies.


The early onset of monsoons (observed) may be caused by aerosols (GFDL modeled) which, over time, could change climate. The monsoons are not considered severe weather events by themselves.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

FTFY There is evidence pointing in both directions right now; hence, inconclusive.

No.

They say that changing climate, as per the IPCC's models, is "likely."
They definitively say that their models, given this input, demonstrate stronger hurricanes.
This means that if climate does not shift, their model predicts no change. If the climate does shift, the model predicts more severe weather.


You continue to try and move the ball on this, but probability inferred in one part of a statement doesn't make the entire statement a probability. If I release a ball is will fall toward the center of gravity for the Earth. I might not release the ball, but if it is released there is a 100% chance it will drop based upon our understanding of gravity. You can argue that gravity doesn't work as we model it, but the burden of proof becomes yours. You need to propose an alternative, and demonstrate your theory is accurate.


To date you haven't proposed an alternative for more severe weather, that isn't based upon climate change. Do so, and we can discuss something.



Edit:
I do like the silent edits to your points.

I did read them. You'll note my summary at the bottom of the links.

Your point that severe weather events eventually end is just stupid. I say this, because the alternative is that something like a hurricane will last forever. A drought is an event, desertification is climate change.

A climate change, wherein precipitation decreases, produces a massive drought. A climate change, wherein vapor levels increase in the atmosphere increase produces stronger hurricanes. As you so fondly pointed out; weather is what it's doing today, climate is weather over time.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The alternatives are being worked on by Boulder Labs. Supercomputer power is presently inadequate to complete their work.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

The alternatives are being worked on by Boulder Labs. Supercomputer power is presently inadequate to complete their work.

This is just getting silly.

"Just wait, my supercomputer will prove you wrong" isn't an answer. It's a retort from a 5 year old.

I'll gladly change my opinion once there is solid proof to the contrary. For now, the evidence points to climate influencing severe weather events.


For the record, I hope they disprove the link. At the same time, that doesn't matter. What I would like isn't fact.