Like the way you presented data from a specific area and time and declared case closed.
Like that?
Show us. :up:
What? You can't?
Pity.
Hurricane Dorian Becomes the 5th Atlantic Category 5 in 4 Years
- Thread starter The Barbarian
- Start date
Like that?
Show us. :up:
What? You can't?
Pity.
Right Divider
Body part
No, it isn't and your repeatedly saying it will never make it come true.
It's typically said tongue in cheek. but I understand your lack of a sense of humor. May you evolve one soon.
Two carefully selected 14-year periods does NOT reflect a large enough sample to prove that man-made activity is an eminent threat to the world.
This is called lying with statistics.
:rotfl:
It wasn't that long ago went the climate hysteria was about the eminent global cooling and a new ice age.
The global climate changes due to many factors. Man-made CO2 is minimal compared to the rest of the natural world.
You're easily convinced of things that are not true.
genuineoriginal
New member
Did the methods used to identify and measure hurricanes change between 1975 and 2004?
If so, you are comparing bananas to oranges.
genuineoriginal
New member
Changing the way hurricanes are identified and measured does not prove that we have stronger storms.
It merely means we have better ways of identifying hurricanes and measuring the wind speed than we had before.
Why do they accept a failed model?
| The great failure of the climate models Computer models of the climate are at the heart of calls to ban the cheap, reliable energy that powers our thriving economy and promotes healthier, longer lives. For decades, these models have projected dramatic warming from small, fossil-fueled increases in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, with catastrophic consequences. Yet, the real-world data aren’t cooperating. They show only slight warming, mostly at night and in winter. According to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there has been no systematic increase in the frequency of extreme weather events, and the ongoing rise in sea level that began with the end of the ice age continues with no great increase in magnitude. The constancy of land-based records is obvious in data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Should we trust these computer models of doom? Let’s find out by comparing the actual temperatures since 1979 with what the 32 families of climate models used in the latest U.N. report on climate science predicted they would be. Atmospheric scientist John Christy developed a global temperature record of the lower atmosphere using highly accurate satellite soundings. NASA honored him for this achievement, and he was an author for a previous edition of the U.N. report. He told a House Science Committee hearing in March 2017 that the U.N. climate models have failed badly. Christy compared the average model projections since 1979 to the most reliable observations — those made by satellites and weather balloons over the vast tropics. The result? In the upper levels of the lower atmosphere, the models predicted seven times as much warming as has been observed. Overprediction also occurred at all other levels. Christy recently concluded that, on average, the projected heating by the models is three times what has been observed. This is a critical error. |
Barbarian explains:
It merely shows that as the Earth's climate warmed up, the prediction of climatologists that we'd have stronger storms was verified.
You've been misled about that:
In an effort to better inform the public about potential hurricane damage, Herbert Saffir and Bob Simpson invented their own measuring classification in 1969.
Saffir, a consulting engineer, and Simpson, the director of the National Hurricane Center at the time, create the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale. Broken down into five categories, hurricanes were given a level of intensity based on sustained wind speeds.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weat...e-category-saffir-simpson-wind-scale/30073771
The current system for classifying hurricanes was implemented long before the 80s. So that's not an issue.
Wind speed and total energy data demonstrate that we now have more severe storms. The classification system that's been in place since the 1960s, merely notes into which categories each storm falls.
It merely means we have better ways of identifying hurricanes and measuring the wind speed than we had before.
As you see above, James Hansen accurately called global temperatures thirty years in advance using a relatively limited model. That's not what scientists would call "failed." Maybe a reporter for a far-right newspaper would, but then, you'd expect him to toe the party line, wouldn't you?
The models certainly don't call for the banning of any energy source, and particularly don't show any reason to ban more efficient and healthful sources like solar and wind. Until you can separate in your mind, that the fact of warming is not the same as the question about what we might do about it, you'll be continuously misled.
I'm looking at Hansen's model, and it doesn't say any of that. You've been misled about that, too. Yes, rising seas are causing more damage to coastal cities, and the warmer climate is causing more drought in the American west. But it's also greening the Sahel in Africa, as the Sahara desert recedes. You see, warming will have winners and losers, at least in the short run. If you live in the Great plains or the Gulf Coast, it's going to be harder. But many areas of Africa (for example) will actually get better.
Well, let's take a look...
The data don't agree with you guy. Sorry about that.
Well, that's a testable belief...
As you see, the number of tropical storms has increase only very slightly. But the frequency of severe tropical storms has increased by a much larger number.
Presently, the rise in sea levels is about 50% due to thermal expansion as the oceans warm up, leaving half to melting glaciers that have begun to disappear in the past few decades. The issue is that we are now seeing a much larger melt-off from continental glaciers, not just alpine glaciers that don't add much to the rise. Greenland melting is accelerating.
Greenland's ice melting faster than scientists previously thought – study
The pace of ice loss has increased four-fold since 2003 as enormous glaciers are depositing ever larger chunks of ice into the Atlantic ocean, where it melts, causing sea levels to rise
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/21/greenland-ice-melting-faster-than-scientists-previously-thought-study
So that's a concern, although not nearly the concern that storms or droughts are for us.
See above. Hansen's model accurately called warming about 30 years in advance. Remember, this was when deniers were calling for cooling. Exxon's scientists knew it too, but chose to hide it from the public. Would you like to see that, again?
Let's look at Hansen's model and see how it worked:
Scenario A was "do nothing at all." Scenario B was "some attempt to restrict carbon emissions." Scenario C was "very strict emission controls." Scenario B was closest to the real case, and it very accurately predicted what happened. So there you are.
In 1992, however, an analysis of satellite data by John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, US, concluded that the lower part of the troposphere – the first 10 kilometres of atmosphere – had cooled relative to the surface since 1979, when the first satellites capable monitoring temperature measurements were launched. This trend seemed to continue into the late 1990s and also seemed to be supported by balloon measurements.
...
One study in Science revealed errors in the way satellite data had been collected and interpreted. For instance, the orbit of satellites gradually slows, which has to be taken into account because it affects the time of day at which temperature recording are taken. This problem was always recognised, but the corrections were given the wrong sign (negative instead positive and vice versa). :doh:
A second study, also in Science, looked at the weather balloon data. Measurements of the air temperature during the day can be skewed if the instruments are heated by sunlight. Over the years the makers of weather balloons had come up with better methods of preventing or correcting for this effect, but because no one had taken these improvements into account, the more accurate measurements appeared to show daytime temperatures getting cooler.:doh::doh:
The corrected temperature records show that tropospheric temperatures are indeed rising at roughly the same rate as surface temperatures. Or, as a 2006 report by the US Climate Change Science Program (pdf) puts it: “For recent decades, all current atmospheric data sets now show global-average warming that is similar to the surface warming.” This one appears settled.
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-the-lower-atmosphere-is-cooling-not-warming/
Christy failed to account for very simple effect, and apparently reversed the sign of some effects, which is surprising for someone of his academic standing.
Ya think?
It merely shows that as the Earth's climate warmed up, the prediction of climatologists that we'd have stronger storms was verified.
You've been misled about that:
In an effort to better inform the public about potential hurricane damage, Herbert Saffir and Bob Simpson invented their own measuring classification in 1969.
Saffir, a consulting engineer, and Simpson, the director of the National Hurricane Center at the time, create the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale. Broken down into five categories, hurricanes were given a level of intensity based on sustained wind speeds.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weat...e-category-saffir-simpson-wind-scale/30073771
The current system for classifying hurricanes was implemented long before the 80s. So that's not an issue.
Wind speed and total energy data demonstrate that we now have more severe storms. The classification system that's been in place since the 1960s, merely notes into which categories each storm falls.
It merely means we have better ways of identifying hurricanes and measuring the wind speed than we had before.
As you see above, James Hansen accurately called global temperatures thirty years in advance using a relatively limited model. That's not what scientists would call "failed." Maybe a reporter for a far-right newspaper would, but then, you'd expect him to toe the party line, wouldn't you?
The models certainly don't call for the banning of any energy source, and particularly don't show any reason to ban more efficient and healthful sources like solar and wind. Until you can separate in your mind, that the fact of warming is not the same as the question about what we might do about it, you'll be continuously misled.
I'm looking at Hansen's model, and it doesn't say any of that. You've been misled about that, too. Yes, rising seas are causing more damage to coastal cities, and the warmer climate is causing more drought in the American west. But it's also greening the Sahel in Africa, as the Sahara desert recedes. You see, warming will have winners and losers, at least in the short run. If you live in the Great plains or the Gulf Coast, it's going to be harder. But many areas of Africa (for example) will actually get better.
Well, let's take a look...
The data don't agree with you guy. Sorry about that.
Well, that's a testable belief...
As you see, the number of tropical storms has increase only very slightly. But the frequency of severe tropical storms has increased by a much larger number.
Presently, the rise in sea levels is about 50% due to thermal expansion as the oceans warm up, leaving half to melting glaciers that have begun to disappear in the past few decades. The issue is that we are now seeing a much larger melt-off from continental glaciers, not just alpine glaciers that don't add much to the rise. Greenland melting is accelerating.
Greenland's ice melting faster than scientists previously thought – study
The pace of ice loss has increased four-fold since 2003 as enormous glaciers are depositing ever larger chunks of ice into the Atlantic ocean, where it melts, causing sea levels to rise
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/21/greenland-ice-melting-faster-than-scientists-previously-thought-study
So that's a concern, although not nearly the concern that storms or droughts are for us.
See above. Hansen's model accurately called warming about 30 years in advance. Remember, this was when deniers were calling for cooling. Exxon's scientists knew it too, but chose to hide it from the public. Would you like to see that, again?
Let's look at Hansen's model and see how it worked:
Scenario A was "do nothing at all." Scenario B was "some attempt to restrict carbon emissions." Scenario C was "very strict emission controls." Scenario B was closest to the real case, and it very accurately predicted what happened. So there you are.
In 1992, however, an analysis of satellite data by John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, US, concluded that the lower part of the troposphere – the first 10 kilometres of atmosphere – had cooled relative to the surface since 1979, when the first satellites capable monitoring temperature measurements were launched. This trend seemed to continue into the late 1990s and also seemed to be supported by balloon measurements.
...
One study in Science revealed errors in the way satellite data had been collected and interpreted. For instance, the orbit of satellites gradually slows, which has to be taken into account because it affects the time of day at which temperature recording are taken. This problem was always recognised, but the corrections were given the wrong sign (negative instead positive and vice versa). :doh:
A second study, also in Science, looked at the weather balloon data. Measurements of the air temperature during the day can be skewed if the instruments are heated by sunlight. Over the years the makers of weather balloons had come up with better methods of preventing or correcting for this effect, but because no one had taken these improvements into account, the more accurate measurements appeared to show daytime temperatures getting cooler.:doh::doh:
The corrected temperature records show that tropospheric temperatures are indeed rising at roughly the same rate as surface temperatures. Or, as a 2006 report by the US Climate Change Science Program (pdf) puts it: “For recent decades, all current atmospheric data sets now show global-average warming that is similar to the surface warming.” This one appears settled.
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-the-lower-atmosphere-is-cooling-not-warming/
Christy failed to account for very simple effect, and apparently reversed the sign of some effects, which is surprising for someone of his academic standing.
Ya think?
Great question. No, it's been the same since the 1960s.
Would have been, if they changed the way we rated hurricanes. But it's been standard since then.
The data clearly show it. No point in denying the fact. Even many deniers now admit it.
(Barbarian notes that climate models accurately called global warming thirty years in advance when deniers were predicting cooling)
Now it is, when scientists are ribbing deniers. But I remember when they were predicting that global temperatures would fall. Would you like me to show you?
Well, you know how humorless barbarians can be...
lain:So you think it's an undistinguished threat to the world? How does one differentiate an eminent threat from an obscure one?
Feel free, though, to pick any two 14-year periods since 1940 where the latter one is not warmer than the prior one. What have you got?
I thought you said it was a joke. Denier hysteria over cooling was quite real. But it never was taken seriously by real scientists:
BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY
THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Fleck
September, 2008
Abstract
Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.
That's being tested right now. We're into a sunspot minimum right now, showing decreased solar activity. So we should be experiencing a cooling trend. But in fact, we're seeing record high global temperatures. Anthropogenic carbon dioxide is overwhelming the natural trend. You're easily convinced of things that are not true.
Think for yourself, and go read the literature instead of letting people with an agenda tell you about it.
Right Divider
Body part
See! There you go again... any since 1940.... selective use of data is biased and is not real science.
The earth has warmed and cooled greatly many times over its lifetime.
According to scientists, the earth was greatly covered with ice in the past. It warmed such that the ice melted to a large extent.... i.e., global warning.... and there were no cars factories, etc. etc. etc.
Your gloom and doom is political and NOT scientific.
Also a carefully selected area.
He is easily convinced of things that are not true.
(stuff about "eminent threats")
Barbarian asks:
So you think it's an undistinguished threat to the world? How does one differentiate an eminent threat from an obscure one? (WFTH-I)
Feel free, though, to pick any two 14-year periods since 1940 where the latter one is not warmer than the prior one. What have you got?
Can't find even one? Neither can anyone else. Guess why. Yep. There isn't one. That's why scientists acknowledge the fact of warming. No way to dodge it.
Every winter and every summer, for example. But that's not what we're talking about.
And according to scientists, it once had a molten surface. How does any of that have anything to do with the fact of increasing carbon dioxide causing warming of the Earth's surface? Your gloom and doom is political and contrary to the scientific evidence.
Find a way to reconcile your political slant with reality.
Barbarian asks:
So you think it's an undistinguished threat to the world? How does one differentiate an eminent threat from an obscure one? (WFTH-I)
Feel free, though, to pick any two 14-year periods since 1940 where the latter one is not warmer than the prior one. What have you got?
Can't find even one? Neither can anyone else. Guess why. Yep. There isn't one. That's why scientists acknowledge the fact of warming. No way to dodge it.
Every winter and every summer, for example. But that's not what we're talking about.
And according to scientists, it once had a molten surface. How does any of that have anything to do with the fact of increasing carbon dioxide causing warming of the Earth's surface? Your gloom and doom is political and contrary to the scientific evidence.
Find a way to reconcile your political slant with reality.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
Lying with "statistics" is no way to play "science".
That was a stupid comment.
That's funny too. The "once molten surface" is another one of the unfalsifiable "ideas" that you're so fond of.
:juggle:
When you want to discuss real science, we'd be glad to do that. Otherwise, keep your childishness to yourself.
Barbarian tests RD's belief:
Feel free, though, to pick any two 14-year periods since 1940 where the latter one is not warmer than the prior one. What have you got?
(declines to answer)
Can't find even one? Neither can anyone else. Guess why. Yep. There isn't one. That's why scientists acknowledge the fact of warming. No way to dodge it.
That's not "lying with statistics"; you just caved and refused to answer the question. And you refused to answer, because there are no numbers supporting your belief.
Barbarian chuckles:
Every winter and every summer, for example. But that's not what we're talking about.
You were doing the best you could, I suppose.
Barbarian observes:
And according to scientists, it once had a molten surface. How does any of that have anything to do with the fact of increasing carbon dioxide causing warming of the Earth's surface? Your gloom and doom is political and contrary to the scientific evidence.
:juggle:
But you're willing to go with what scientists say, if you think it might support your beliefs. This is why you're so easy to fool. It's when you're told something that you really, really want to be true, that you should be most skeptical. That's when it's easiest to fool you.
Getting petulant and abusive isn't going to make your ideas more credible. Instead of going off the rails with personal attacks, try to put together a reasonable argument, supported with facts.
Worth a try?
Feel free, though, to pick any two 14-year periods since 1940 where the latter one is not warmer than the prior one. What have you got?
(declines to answer)
Can't find even one? Neither can anyone else. Guess why. Yep. There isn't one. That's why scientists acknowledge the fact of warming. No way to dodge it.
That's not "lying with statistics"; you just caved and refused to answer the question. And you refused to answer, because there are no numbers supporting your belief.
Barbarian chuckles:
Every winter and every summer, for example. But that's not what we're talking about.
You were doing the best you could, I suppose.
Barbarian observes:
And according to scientists, it once had a molten surface. How does any of that have anything to do with the fact of increasing carbon dioxide causing warming of the Earth's surface? Your gloom and doom is political and contrary to the scientific evidence.
:juggle:
But you're willing to go with what scientists say, if you think it might support your beliefs. This is why you're so easy to fool. It's when you're told something that you really, really want to be true, that you should be most skeptical. That's when it's easiest to fool you.
Getting petulant and abusive isn't going to make your ideas more credible. Instead of going off the rails with personal attacks, try to put together a reasonable argument, supported with facts.
Worth a try?
Right Divider
Body part
Abusive? Aren't you just the petite little flower!
Not really.
Just lies — again.
Notice how you were talking about storms. Then when you got called on your bogus graph, you switched to temperatures.
Typical Barbarian. This is why he is known as the most dishonest poster on TOL.
Getting petulant and abusive isn't going to make your ideas more credible. Instead of going off the rails, try to put together a reasonable argument, supported with facts.
Worth a try. :up:
Barbarian notes RD's increasingly angry personal attacks:
Getting petulant and abusive isn't going to make your ideas more credible.
Yep. You would be a lot smarter to focus on putting a reasonable argument together. Do you not realize what your name-calling does to your credibility?
Or you could double down on it and hope that you'll get a different result this time. One of those.
Getting petulant and abusive isn't going to make your ideas more credible.
Yep. You would be a lot smarter to focus on putting a reasonable argument together. Do you not realize what your name-calling does to your credibility?
Or you could double down on it and hope that you'll get a different result this time. One of those.