Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 09-20-2017, 02:13 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Pedant View Post
Ummm.....Gb, you are kind of making my point for me in how readily alarmists misinterpret the science...

There is no science supporting the notion that the current bad hurricanes are related to climate change.

It appears one of us did not "read the thing," but I suggest that person is you.

Let's read this together:
"Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century..."

I added the underlining to help focus your attention. May I suggest digesting the "end of the 21st century" part before you hop to the very exciting "more intense" part. Then take a quick peek at your calendar to remind yourself whether we are at the end of the 21st century. (Hint: No. This is 2017, so 75 years or so to go still, to see if that prediction is correct.)

To review my point once again:
There is no science supporting the notion that current North Atlantic hurricanes are a harbinger of global warming. If you take the overall record of hurricanes over the past 150 years or so, there is no evidence they are getting more intense or more frequent than they were in the past. Hurricanes tend to run in cycles. Quiet cycles. Noisy cycles. Further, 100 years ago we had nowhere near the tracking science we have now, so any huge storms at sea which lost power by the time they got to People Who Could Measure would not have even been properly recorded with the correct overall intensity.

If you find science to the contrary, by all means post it.
https://www.neefusa.org/nature/water...cane-intensity
Quote:
While there is uncertainty as to whether the frequency and duration of hurricanes will increase, scientists project that storm intensity and rainfall rates will increase in the future. Hurricane-related impacts can be magnified by other environmental factors such as increasing sea levels. Additionally, a growing concentration of people and properties in coastal areas where hurricanes strike can result in increased damages when these storms make landfall. For example, sea levels rose a foot over the last century off the coast of New York City. As a result, the storm surge, flooding, and associated damages to infrastructure and communities were more severe when Hurricane Sandy hit than they would have been a few decades ago.
So, besides letting all know that you skipped the early explanation, you tell them now that I omitted that I indeed said that there is no effect seen in the number of hurricanes. The issue now is indeed that basic physics tell us that the intensity of the hurricanes is related to things like the ocean rise and the increase of water vapor in a warming world. (Items that you deftly avoided dealing with) The point that you missed spectacularly is that those effects are happening now and will most likely increase in the future.

The main point stands, you are just insisting that we should ignore that and also that on top of all that we should ignore that by the end of the century that then we might, just might find out that the hurricane numbers also increase. You are like a doctor that is telling an smoker that the mild emphysema can be controlled now, but to not quit just because cancer would be unlikely. Of course that makes no sense, just like your post. The intensity the scientists are talking about is related to the increase in energy, water vapor and the ocean rise that continues in a warming world due to humans dumping more global warming gases into the atmosphere.

Of course just like the doctors in the pockets of the tobacco companies deniers of climate change also make assumptions about what scientists and posters like me are saying.
__________________
The only successful way to predict the future is to invent it. - Alan Kay

Last edited by GIGObuster; 09-20-2017 at 02:15 PM.
Advertisements  
  #52  
Old 09-20-2017, 02:42 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Pedant View Post
Just a couple of points about hurricanes, which are parsed out better in the GFDL article.

First, 50 years is a cherry-picked chunk of time. Yes; Atlantic PDI has risen over the last 50 years, but what about over the last 100 years or more? If there is a trend (1878-2006, "it is so small that it is not statistically distinguishable from zero."
I think it has to be pointed out here that wolfpup was remarking about intensity not an increase in the number of the hurricanes. You are not even wrong. Of course you do notice after that asinine aside:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Pedant View Post
As to intensity (versus frequency), "the major hurricane data are considered even less reliable than the other two records in the early parts of the record," which should make intuitive sense if you have followed current hurricanes, some of which were Cat 4 or 5 out in the Atlantic, but lower in intensity upon reaching the US. 100 years ago we would have no idea what they were before they hit.

Here is a graph showing some of the summary data.


I do not argue against modeling (which is beyond my ability to critique) that suggests that hurricanes may become worse toward the end of the century. I argue that there is no good scientific basis for suggesting that current hurricanes are a harbinger that climate change is at hand...and that it is counter-productive for the alarmist cause to present them as such.
You argue with one opinion that is not the only or final word on the matter. What is even sadder is that it was already pointed before that the source you pointed at (once again, there is no complain about the lack of an increase in numbers) also mentions that the intensity is increasing. Of course your hung up is that it reports that it will be by the end of the century, but that is once again like a doctor that tells a smoker to not mind that a condition is beginning to increase now.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/hur...termediate.htm
Quote:
What the science says...

It is unclear whether global warming is increasing hurricane frequency but there is increasing evidence that warming increases hurricane intensity.
Quote:
To determine whether warmer temperatures affect hurricane intensity, one study began by defining the potential destructiveness of a hurricane based on the dissipation of power, integrated over the lifetime of a hurricane (Emanuel 2005). The Power Dissipation Index is found to increase since the mid-1970s, due to both longer and more intense storms. Hurricane intensity is also highly correlated with sea surface temperature. This suggests that future warming will lead to an increase in the destructive potential of tropical hurricanes.

Hurricane Intensity (Power Dissipation Index) versus North Atlantic Sea Surface Temperature - Emmanuel 2005
Figure 2: Smoothed Power Dissipation Index (dotted line, a measure of hurricane intensity) versus Tropical Atlantic Sea Surface Temperature (solid black line). (Emannuel 2005).

Global satellite data since 1981 can be used to extend analysis of hurricane intensity to each ocean, looking for any trend in wind speed (Elsner 2008). Figure 3 plots the long term trend in maximum wind speed (eg - whether hurricanes are getting stronger or weaker) against different strength hurricanes. This tells us not only whether hurricanes are overall getting stronger but also how different strength hurricanes are being affected. Overall, there is a statistically significant upward trend (the horizontal red line). But more significantly, Elsner found weaker hurricanes showed little to no trend while stronger hurricanes showed a greater upward trend. In other words, stronger hurricanes are getting stronger. This means that as sea temperatures continue to rise, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will inevitably increase. More on Elsner's paper...
__________________
The only successful way to predict the future is to invent it. - Alan Kay

Last edited by GIGObuster; 09-20-2017 at 02:44 PM.
  #53  
Old 09-20-2017, 04:18 PM
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Pedant View Post
Just a couple of points about hurricanes, which are parsed out better in the GFDL article.

First, 50 years is a cherry-picked chunk of time. Yes; Atlantic PDI has risen over the last 50 years, but what about over the last 100 years or more?
50 years is not "cherry-picked". 50 years represents, in round numbers, the amount of time that we've had comprehensive satellite coverage of storms over the open oceans, most notably over those areas where PDIs have been significantly increasing. Before that time the data was just not accurate enough to determine anything, a point which you at least partially acknowledge (with regard to intensity) later in your own post.

Are you at all troubled by the fact that you are contradicting one of the most prominent hurricane experts in the world?
  #54  
Old 09-20-2017, 04:29 PM
Chief Pedant Chief Pedant is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
https://www.neefusa.org/nature/water...cane-intensity


So, besides letting all know that you skipped the early explanation, you tell them now that I omitted that I indeed said that there is no effect seen in the number of hurricanes. The issue now is indeed that basic physics tell us that the intensity of the hurricanes is related to things like the ocean rise and the increase of water vapor in a warming world. (Items that you deftly avoided dealing with) The point that you missed spectacularly is that those effects are happening now and will most likely increase in the future.

The main point stands, you are just insisting that we should ignore that and also that on top of all that we should ignore that by the end of the century that then we might, just might find out that the hurricane numbers also increase. You are like a doctor that is telling an smoker that the mild emphysema can be controlled now, but to not quit just because cancer would be unlikely. Of course that makes no sense, just like your post. The intensity the scientists are talking about is related to the increase in energy, water vapor and the ocean rise that continues in a warming world due to humans dumping more global warming gases into the atmosphere.

Of course just like the doctors in the pockets of the tobacco companies deniers of climate change also make assumptions about what scientists and posters like me are saying.
Sigh...
Look, Gb; I am not going to pretend that I understand how the modeling of Emmanuel and others predicts a rise in intensity or frequency. I don't have the ken to weigh in on whether or not they are good models. (I am skeptical that ocean rise and water vapor are the explanations for intensity--more likely those are explanations for the increased amount of damage predicted to occur from a storm with the same PDI.)

What I am trying to get across is that there is no science supporting the idea that the current hurricanes are harbingers of those models, because there is no data supporting an increase in hurricane intensity or frequency over the last 150 years or so. I gave you a pretty good article reviewing the data and you continue to insist these things are "happening now."

Do you have some kind of hurricane record data beyond what I have given you? I am not interested in arguing about what models predict. I am interested in using science to make statements, and not PR.

Back to my original point, for which I will use your own smoker-physician analogy:

Smoker comes to see me. I tell him he's gonna be sorry in the future. He doesn't listen. So I take an xray, point out some completely unrelated "shadow" on it and tell him the effects are already starting, because here's the proof.

This is bad doctoring, for the same reason that jumping on the hurricane-climate change bandwagon with the current hurricanes is a bad alarming. No data supports the idea that the patient's xray finding is from smoking. When, between now and the future, he finds out that said smoking harbinger was not a harbinger at all, he's less likely to stop smoking because I lost credibility.

What is highly likely to happen with hurricanes is that we will simmer down to a quiet cycle, and when we do, those who hyped them will have cost the climate change alarmists credibility currency. I see this play out every day with the climate change battle for hearts and sacrifice. It is simply not helpful to cry wolf without data, even if a real wolf is about to chow down.
  #55  
Old 09-20-2017, 05:37 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,811
Well, it is underwhelming when you still insist on talking to the strawman.

And my second post that you also avoided does link to the evidence of the increase of intensity. And as much as you try to assume that I was not talking about ocean rise and the increase in water vapor as elements of why hurricanes are getting more intence, I was.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 09-20-2017 at 05:38 PM.
  #56  
Old 09-20-2017, 07:45 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,811
Just a few items that I have more time to deal with:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Pedant View Post
Sigh...
Look, Gb; I am not going to pretend that I understand how the modeling of Emmanuel and others predicts a rise in intensity or frequency. I don't have the ken to weigh in on whether or not they are good models. (I am skeptical that ocean rise and water vapor are the explanations for intensity--more likely those are explanations for the increased amount of damage predicted to occur from a storm with the same PDI.)
Sure, lets ignore all logic. Thing is that others more knowledgeable than you or me do not do that.

http://www.popsci.com/climate-change...y-worse#page-3
Quote:
NASA and the National Oceanographic Institute (NOAA) describe tropical cyclones like Hurricane Harvey as “engines that require moist air as fuel.” That need for heat is why the Atlantic hurricane season stretches from June through November. Tropical cyclones only form over ocean waters that maintain a temperature of at least 80 degrees Fahrenheit for 165 feet below the surface, and that’s the time of year when the Atlantic Ocean is most likely to be so warm. Just add wind, and you've got yourself a hurricane.

But warmer waters don’t just make hurricanes more likely to form—they also make them more severe. And it's here where we can see the fingerprints of climate change on Harvey.

“For every degree centigrade the ocean surface heats up, you get about a seven percent increase in water vapor in the atmosphere,” says Jeff Masters, the director of meteorology at Weather Underground.

“In the Gulf of Mexico, where Harvey drew its strength from, the temperature was about a degree centigrade above average for this time of year,” he explains. “And a great part of that extra heat energy was due to the fact that this year, the planet as a whole is experiencing its second warmest year on record.”

In other words, the near-record heat gave Harvey seven percent extra moisture to work with. This doesn’t mean that only 630 billion gallons of the 9 trillion gallons of rainfall (and counting) can be blamed on climate change. That seven percent of extra moisture has a magnifying effect. When a storm has extra moisture, it also has extra energy. And it takes energy to convert water in the ocean into water vapor that can fall as rain.

“The heat energy that it took to create that water vapor is stored in the water vapor as latent heat,” says Masters. “When that water vapor condenses back into rain, that energy is released—and it goes to power the storm. It makes updrafts stronger, so the storm can suck in air all around it. The storm gets bigger and stronger as a result of the extra water vapor in it.”

This isn’t the only way in which climate change has made Harvey worse. On his Facebook page, the climatologist Michael Mann points out that the sea level rise contributed to the height of the storm surge.

“That means that the storm surge was half a foot higher than it would have been just decades ago, meaning far more flooding and destruction,” Mann writes. It’s a sentiment echoed by the climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe, who last week noted on Twitter that higher seas could mean stronger storm surges.

Perhaps most critically, much of Harvey's havoc is due to its lack of movement. If current predictions hold, Harvey will have stuck around the same region of Texas for a week before it clears out. This phenomenon—of bad weather basically getting stuck—has become a recurring theme. Parts of Canada flooded this summer thanks to a similar effect. And in 2016, a slow-moving weather system dropped 20 inches of rain on Lafayette, Louisiana in the span of two days.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Pedant View Post
What I am trying to get across is that there is no science supporting the idea that the current hurricanes are harbingers of those models, because there is no data supporting an increase in hurricane intensity or frequency over the last 150 years or so. I gave you a pretty good article reviewing the data and you continue to insist these things are "happening now."
Again, you are still talking about the straw man. As mentioned a really underwhelming point.

[There is a cut here on your quote as I replied early to that bit.]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Pedant View Post
Back to my original point, for which I will use your own smoker-physician analogy:

Smoker comes to see me. I tell him he's gonna be sorry in the future. He doesn't listen. So I take an xray, point out some completely unrelated "shadow" on it and tell him the effects are already starting, because here's the proof.

This is bad doctoring, for the same reason that jumping on the hurricane-climate change bandwagon with the current hurricanes is a bad alarming. No data supports the idea that the patient's xray finding is from smoking. When, between now and the future, he finds out that said smoking harbinger was not a harbinger at all, he's less likely to stop smoking because I lost credibility.
And as I pointed many times one does lose credibility when one insists on talking about the straw man instead of the reasons why hurricanes get more intense.

As pointed before, you are indeed making a straw man out of how you are making the smoker-physician analogy. The point I made does stand. In the analogy I made the cancer (increase in number of hurricanes) was probably in the future, and you insist on ignoring that I was talking about the currently noticeable emphysema (Hurricane intensifying items like increase in water vapor and ocean rise). I was not talking about the cancer being certain, I was however pointing out that a very bad physician would be the one that does not warn that, besides the emphysema getting worse by continuing to smoke, the patient then opens the chance of getting something even worse in the future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Pedant View Post
What is highly likely to happen with hurricanes is that we will simmer down to a quiet cycle, and when we do, those who hyped them will have cost the climate change alarmists credibility currency.
As pointed many, many times before, you are really wrong on this. Most of the scientists that are experts on the field do talk about how storms may be fewer but stronger for years already, as I also pointed before.

Point being that, yes, your OP was mostly wrong as many others already pointed out. (And as I also pointed before, I already mentioned that there are indeed some alarmist media that does get it infuriatingly wrong, but it is not me nor the scientists that I looked at).
  #57  
Old 09-21-2017, 05:44 AM
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 3,916
Yawn. Another global climate change denier who wants to have a "debate" without facts to support it.

Nope.
  #58  
Old 09-21-2017, 09:21 AM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 7,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Yawn. Another global climate change denier who wants to have a "debate" without facts to support it.

Nope.
Can't trust a damn thing NOAA publishes, now can we ...
  #59  
Old 09-23-2017, 04:48 AM
Chief Pedant Chief Pedant is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
50 years is not "cherry-picked". 50 years represents, in round numbers, the amount of time that we've had comprehensive satellite coverage of storms over the open oceans, most notably over those areas where PDIs have been significantly increasing. Before that time the data was just not accurate enough to determine anything, a point which you at least partially acknowledge (with regard to intensity) later in your own post.

Are you at all troubled by the fact that you are contradicting one of the most prominent hurricane experts in the world?
But that's the point...the time period is cherry picked because that's when we have data. If you read the GFLD article and look at the NOAA historic trend graphs, you'll see why it's so hard to decide that current hurricane, for either intensity or frequency, have worsened as a result of climate change.

As to Kerry Emanuel (I assume this is to whom you are referring), I am confused where I have contradicted him. He has two key expertises: 1. How hurricanes work, and 2. Modeling what will happen in the future.

Emanuel is very careful to parse out "expected increase" from current events. His complaint about current events boils down to building near the coast, and a future probability increase that we will have more intense, (but less frequent) storms. His model does not support a current increase in number, so the increased number of storms this year is an outlier to his model. Obviously that does not mean the model is wrong; just that weather is variable around a long-term mean.

The recent quiescent cycle in the North Atlantic does not mean Emanuel is wrong, and the current year does not mean that Emanuel is right. The current spate of bad hurricanes is not some kind of evidence of climate change, and climate change models do not predict this bad year and more than they failed to predict recent years.

I suspect it drives Emanuel crazy that every time some bad hurricanes come along, alarmists want him to shout "Global Warming!" As a scientist he is very circumspect about doing that, and for the same reason I hold: It does not further a Great Cause to over-reach, and we are lousy at predicting. Science is science and we do ourselves no favors creating wolves out of every shadow even if we recognize that wolves exist.
  #60  
Old 09-23-2017, 05:02 AM
Chief Pedant Chief Pedant is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,956
Kerry Emanuel,August 2017:

Now we’re once again deep into storm season around the world, and it’s not pretty. With events still unfolding in Texas with Hurricane/Tropical Storm Harvey, and weeks of escalating devastating monsoon floods in Bangladesh, India and Nepal, many people are asking: are these extreme storms the result of climate change?

The current thinking: it’s complicated. Foremost, we shouldn’t be seeking a direct causal link between climate change and any particular storm. As Professor Emanuel told The Washington Post’s Chris Mooney a few days ago:

“My feeling is, when there’s a hurricane, there’s an occasion to talk about the subject,” he said. “But attributing a particular [weather] event to anything, whether it’s climate change or anything else, is a badly posed question, really.”
  #61  
Old 09-23-2017, 05:13 AM
Chief Pedant Chief Pedant is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
Can't trust a damn thing NOAA publishes, now can we ...
NOAA's Atlantic basin ACE numbers from 1851 to 2016...

Same numbers, graphed in Wikipedia...

Last edited by Chief Pedant; 09-23-2017 at 05:15 AM.
  #62  
Old 09-23-2017, 08:06 AM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Pedant View Post
But that's the point...the time period is cherry picked because that's when we have data. If you read the GFLD article and look at the NOAA historic trend graphs, you'll see why it's so hard to decide that current hurricane, for either intensity or frequency, have worsened as a result of climate change.

As to Kerry Emanuel (I assume this is to whom you are referring), I am confused where I have contradicted him. He has two key expertises: 1. How hurricanes work, and 2. Modeling what will happen in the future.

Emanuel is very careful to parse out "expected increase" from current events. His complaint about current events boils down to building near the coast, and a future probability increase that we will have more intense, (but less frequent) storms. His model does not support a current increase in number, so the increased number of storms this year is an outlier to his model. Obviously that does not mean the model is wrong; just that weather is variable around a long-term mean.
That and the following posts just demonstrates that you are still insisting that we are talking about alarming people about an increase in the number of hurricanes, that was not the case and Kerry Emmanuel was one of the first researchers I was talking about regarding why the problem is that global warming is making the damage that the excess water and energy that is present once a hurricane comes along.

Your contradiction is basically why you got the OP wrong. Emmanuel and others like wolfpup are referring to the intensity of the hurricanes, not just Power Dissipation Index (PDI), which accounts for cyclone strength, duration, and frequency. The frequency number is not about what water that is increasing in the background is doing now and will likely do in the future.

From the same article you quoted on your next post:
Quote:
Scientists are clear that climate change has “threat multiplier” effects on storms, increasing the likelihood and severity of some aspects. For instance: warmer waters and warmer air increase the moisture available and the energy in storms; disruptions in atmospheric circulation increase the likelihood of a storm “stalling out” over a region; and ocean storm surges are made more destructive when melting ice caps have raised the baseline sea level.

“The thing that keeps forecasters up at night is the prospect that a storm will rapidly gain strength just before it hits land,” Emanuel recently told Agence France-Presse, citing Harvey as an example. “Global warming can accentuate that sudden acceleration in intensity.”

Interestingly, it’s still uncertain whether global warming will lead to more or less frequent hurricanes. But in terms of catastrophic damage, storm frequency seems less important than the severity of storms, where climate change does have a clear footprint.
As Kerry Emmanuel and other scientists clarified elsewhere:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ricane-harvey/
Quote:
“The storm is a bit more intense, bigger and longer lasting than it otherwise would be,” added Kevin Trenberth, a climate researcher with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

And then there’s sea level — it’s higher along the Texas coast than it was 100 years ago or more. At least part of that is because of climate change and its melting of ice and swelling of ocean water — though there are other factors in the mix, too, such as the subsidence of land.

Sea level matters for storm surge, one key destructive aspect of any hurricane. “New York, when Sandy hit, the sea level was already about a foot higher than it was 100 years earlier,” Emanuel said. “So if Sandy had hit in 1912, it probably would not have flooded Lower Manhattan.”

Last edited by GIGObuster; 09-23-2017 at 08:08 AM.
  #63  
Old 09-24-2017, 03:57 AM
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
We wouldn't see a bunch of Cat 5 hurricanes in just one year. Next year conditions will almost certainly be less favorable. If climate change was a decisive factor in hurricane severity, we'd be seeing more severe hurricanes over a long period. Except we're not. There's no trend in the data between 1900 and today. It's fair to say that climate change may produce more severe hurricanes in the future, but it is not causing more severe hurricanes today.
How 'bout this? The data is messy (as one might expect - there aren't that many hurricanes per year) but there still seems to be a pretty clear trend.
  #64  
Old 09-27-2017, 04:21 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 19,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Pedant View Post
The battle for current control of public opinion around the Great Cause of anthropogenic climate change is largely won, in my opinion, and the winner is the alarmist camp (those very concerned that climate change will have profoundly negative net consequence, and therefore an alarm should be sounded to substantively change what we are able to change to minimize the consequence).
Huh, and just last December you were saying that the climate realists ("alarmists" in your idiosyncratic lingo) seemed to have lost the battle for public opinion:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Pedant
Are we settling in then, on a general consensus from the AGW Alarmists, that the single worst consequence is an increased frequency of "extreme" weather?

I do not think AGW Deniers will be particularly moved by that message...but perhaps I am mistaken? It seems rather vague and soft, and hard to quantify. If the world is just generally warmer and wetter with extreme weather more frequent, I'm not sure much traction will be gained for the idea that we have a crisis on our hands against which we need to act and act big. [...]

For AGW Alarmism to regain its prominence with the masses will require a clear elevator pitch about what the threat is, exactly. I don't see that in this thread (and I'm not sure I've ever seen it...).
Amazing how massive hurricane devastation suddenly makes concerns about increased severity of "extreme" weather events look quite a bit less "vague and soft", huh?
  #65  
Old 10-14-2017, 10:11 AM
Chief Pedant Chief Pedant is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Amazing how massive hurricane devastation suddenly makes concerns about increased severity of "extreme" weather events look quite a bit less "vague and soft", huh?
Exactly! Thanks for stating the confirmation bias problem so succinctly, Kimstu.

When one is deeply committed to a Great Cause--be it miracles from Jesus or Global Warming--what we see around us at that moment tends to reaffirm our belief. We let the science go because we are seeing Proof Positive Right Now. Human nature, I guess.

Hurricane ACE North Atlantic:

2005
Alarmist: Global Warming is real, stupid!
Denier: Weather, stupid!

2013
Denier: Global Warming is a myth, stupid!
Alarmist: Weather, stupid!

2017
Alarmist: Global Warming is real, stupid!
Denier: Weather, stupid!
  #66  
Old 10-14-2017, 11:42 AM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,811
Actually climate is not weather, so this is just again another sorry attempt at making a point. The increase in intensity of the hurricanes that do come is still there no matter how much contrarians want to tap dance around it. It is way past the time to continue to listen to them.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ate-change-too
Quote:
The reason is quite simple – if climate models are right, then if we don’t start cutting our consumption of fossil fuels, we’re in big trouble. But the GOP has now effectively become the Grand Oil Party – a subsidiary of the fossil fuel industry that does its bidding. They don’t want to curb our reliance on fossil fuels, so they attack the models, or like Rush Limbaugh, claim it’s all a hoax and then flee to California, leaving the duped followers behind to face the ugly consequences of science denial.

We need to act on model warnings about climate change too

There are some exceptions. The bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus, which now includes 28 House Republicans, acknowledged the impacts climate change is having on disasters like Harvey and Irma. We need more conservatives to accept reality and join their ranks.

Scientific models saved countless lives from Harvey and Irma because we listened and acted. They can also save countless lives from climate change if we listen and take action to slow global warming. Or we can listen to the conspiracy theorists, ignore the scientists and their models, and suffer the consequences while the Rush Limbaughs of the world flee in their private jets to higher ground.
  #67  
Old 10-14-2017, 11:50 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 74,330
The OP is missing the key point: the people who have been denying climate change for the last ten years are not going to apply scientific standards to any claims regarding hurricanes being caused by climate change. Because these people don't understand how science works. If they did, they would have accepted the existence of climate change years ago.

These people just believe whatever an authority figure tells them. If an authority figure tells them climate change is a Chinese hoax, they believe it. If another figure steps forward and says "You fools! Your lack of faith has angered the hurricane gods!" then they'll bow before a new authority figure.
  #68  
Old Yesterday, 02:26 AM
Mijin Mijin is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 7,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
The OP is missing the key point: the people who have been denying climate change for the last ten years are not going to apply scientific standards to any claims regarding hurricanes being caused by climate change.
Right, and that's why I tried to clarify Chief Pedant's position upthread. Note how deftly he avoided answering the question.

I can't really get on board with the whole "Why are alarmists saying this or that hurricane was caused by AGW?" that's alledgedly happening, without first an acknowledgement that the really ridiculous thing is that there are still deniers out there, period.
After yet another year of record-breaking high temperatures, and with all the arguments that deniers used to use ("hiatus", "land ice hasn't declined", "it's not faster than previous climate shifts" etc) in tatters, why are we still having this conversation? What reasonable person is still on the fence?
  #69  
Old Yesterday, 06:13 AM
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
Right, and that's why I tried to clarify Chief Pedant's position upthread. Note how deftly he avoided answering the question.
He not only avoided the question, he made a pseudo-assertion using weasel words that are pretty much meaningless: "that associating bad hurricanes with climate change will backfire on Global Warming Alarmists, because this is an unscientific position".

What does "associating bad hurricanes with climate change" mean, exactly? Does it mean a claim that some specific hurricane was caused by climate change, no question about it? Does it mean the assertion that this kind of extreme weather will statistically happen more often? Does it mean a prediction of increased hurricane numbers, or does it mean a prediction of increased hurricane energies? Is the prediction global or specific to certain ocean basins? What's the metric being used to assess hurricane energies? What's the timeframe for the prediction?

Depending on the answers to those questions, such predictions may be unscientific or they may be rigorously scientific and backed up by a ton of evidence and endorsed by the most prominent climatologists and hurricane specialists in the world. There most definitely is an association between hurricanes and climate change subject to the conditions and caveats I mentioned earlier and which Chief Pedant dutifully ignored, just as he ignored your question. The vague unqualified weasel-worded statement he makes is what's truly unscientific.
  #70  
Old Yesterday, 07:18 AM
Chief Pedant Chief Pedant is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
He not only avoided the question, he made a pseudo-assertion using weasel words that are pretty much meaningless: "that associating bad hurricanes with climate change will backfire on Global Warming Alarmists, because this is an unscientific position".
What does "associating bad hurricanes with climate change" mean, exactly? Does it mean a claim that some specific hurricane was caused by climate change, no question about it? Does it mean the assertion that this kind of extreme weather will statistically happen more often? Does it mean a prediction of increased hurricane numbers, or does it mean a prediction of increased hurricane energies? Is the prediction global or specific to certain ocean basins? What's the metric being used to assess hurricane energies? What's the timeframe for the prediction?
Depending on the answers to those questions, such predictions may be unscientific or they may be rigorously scientific and backed up by a ton of evidence and endorsed by the most prominent climatologists and hurricane specialists in the world. There most definitely is an association between hurricanes and climate change subject to the conditions and caveats I mentioned earlier and which Chief Pedant dutifully ignored, just as he ignored your question. The vague unqualified weasel-worded statement he makes is what's truly unscientific.
LOL. Associating bad hurricanes with climate change means that, when one comes along, the associator promotes it as evidence that climate change is upon us. “Told ya!” Come on. You get that. And generally the associator specifically does NOT go into any detail about the subtleties, which is why it is such an unscientific association. That is the whole point. There is absolutely no science that says hurricanes are harbingers of anthropogenic global warming. They are notoriously hard to separate out from the background variability, and climate change models themselves are unable to quite figure out what is going to happen. The general summary for current models is fewer hurricanes; possibly more severe. Both of those predictions well into the future—i.e., NOT currently the case on either front. When we see lots of hurricanes within a cycle, or lots of energy within a hurricane—current science did not predict that either of those things is a result of current atmospheric gas changes. And there is NO current science that this is Already Happening! a la the typical asssociator yelping.

My position on anthropogenic climate change is pretty straightforward.

First, humans generate gases which affect the climate substantially beyond the background effect of what would otherwise be "natural" were humans not to exist.

Second, our ability to predict the net effect of that gas production is very poor. We don't have a good track record of long-term prediction for anything. We are very likely to get wrong both the worst negative consequence(s) and the unexpected positive ones. We are also likely to get wrong what actually happens from a climate change perspective since we have only modeling with which to predict; those models are heavily dependent on variables which themselves are difficult to predict. We do not, for example, have a variable for any scientific advancement such as large-scale removal of atmospheric gas.

Third, something in our nature generally predisposes us to predict doom over neutral or even positive outcomes. At some psychological level we are a lot more in love with being the one who cried "disaster" first.

Fourth, we are also psychologically inclined to glomming onto to a Great Cause. We want to be part of Something Special. Once we have chosen said Great Cause, we are inclined to a Confirmation Bias. See Kimstu’s excellent point about that, above.

Fifth, anthropogenic climate change is nowhere near the top of the things that are going to ruin this world ecologically for the next generations. Human population increase alone will do that, particularly as we get the poorer parts of the world up to anything close to western standards. We will raze our forests into croplands, and our open spaces and seas into food farms. We will pave over the earth into roads and bridges; we will suck out all the fresh water from underground and then begin distilling the oceans. 100 years from now the most substantial disruption of the natural ecosystem will not be a result of climate change but instead the result of too many humans, living as well as possible.

Sixth, it is highly unlikely we will get right which anthropogenic or natural disasters end up being the most catastrophic ones.
BUT…here is the thing I am rebelling at in my OP: To the extent we ARE concerned about anthropogenic climate change, we do ourselves no service by carelessly throwing about fake associations. We do ourselves no long term service by promoting confirmation bias. And the reason we do so is because we love love love our Great Cause. However in the long run, science suffers.

Finally, dear readers, is it friggin’ even possible to post ANYTHING about anthropogenic climate change without being asked to pass the litmus test of “Well, are you a Denier??!! SIR, I ask you again: ARE YOU A DENIER??!! Because if you are a Denier, I have no need of paying any attention to you. Good day sir! Good day!!” Even within this thread, a poster literally said that, if I were a Denier, the poster had no need of any further participation. As if a statement on my part about hurricanes and global warming has no merit if its author is a Denier. Within such constructs is science suffocated.

The commitment to the Great Cause of Anthropogenic Climate Change is so profoundly invasive that any and all deviations from The Message are attacked through a filter which first insists on passing the litmus test that you belong to the Faith. I am unable to separate out the psychology driving belief in the climate change Great Cause from the same human foibles which drove the Inquisition, or the Red Scare, or any other number of similar trends.

Dear Jesus, please let me live another hundred years just to get the last laugh about whose “vague unqualified weasel-worded statement” about climate change was right…
  #71  
Old Yesterday, 07:37 AM
Mijin Mijin is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 7,612
Still didn't answer either of my questions
  #72  
Old Yesterday, 08:03 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 74,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Pedant View Post
Finally, dear readers, is it friggin’ even possible to post ANYTHING about anthropogenic climate change without being asked to pass the litmus test of “Well, are you a Denier??!! SIR, I ask you again: ARE YOU A DENIER??!! Because if you are a Denier, I have no need of paying any attention to you. Good day sir! Good day!!” Even within this thread, a poster literally said that, if I were a Denier, the poster had no need of any further participation. As if a statement on my part about hurricanes and global warming has no merit if its author is a Denier. Within such constructs is science suffocated.
That's how reality works. When you chose to not believe in science, people who believe in science stop taking you seriously.
  #73  
Old Yesterday, 10:42 AM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Pedant View Post
LOL. Associating bad hurricanes with climate change means that, when one comes along, the associator promotes it as evidence that climate change is upon us. “Told ya!” Come on. You get that. And generally the associator specifically does NOT go into any detail about the subtleties, which is why it is such an unscientific association. That is the whole point.[/I]
piffle.

The whole point here is that you avoided not only the questions from many posters but also continue to avoid that while some popular press is getting grossly wrong, scientists already have reported and continue to report that how many hurricanes will come is not known but there are implications that point to the issue that tell us that it is really reckless to wait to know how what that number is going to go when other issues related to the release of CO2 are known to be more likely to affect us.

What is it know is that factors related to global warming are making Hurricanes more intense. For all your complaints there is one common issue in your tirade. It is what I have seen many times before: contrarians that only look at denier sources that do press on the talking point of "all proponents of climate change getting it wrong" by not realizing that their point is to discredit what the scientists do actually report also.

http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/facts/hurricanes.html
Quote:
As long as the base of this weather system remains over warm water and its top is not sheared apart by high-altitude winds, it will strengthen and grow. More and more heat and water will be pumped into the air. The pressure at its core will drop further and further, sucking in wind at ever increasing speeds. Over several hours to days, the storm will intensify, finally reaching hurricane status when the winds that swirl around it reach sustained speeds of 74 miles per hour or more.

Eventually, hurricanes turn away from the tropics and into mid-latitudes. Once they move over cold water or over land and lose touch with the hot water that powers them, these storms weaken and break apart.

Recent studies have shown a link between ocean surface temperatures and tropical storm intensity – warmer waters fuel more energetic storms.

Last edited by GIGObuster; Yesterday at 10:46 AM.
  #74  
Old Yesterday, 11:36 AM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Pedant View Post
Second, our ability to predict the net effect of that gas production is very poor. We don't have a good track record of long-term prediction for anything. We are very likely to get wrong both the worst negative consequence(s) and the unexpected positive ones. We are also likely to get wrong what actually happens from a climate change perspective since we have only modeling with which to predict; those models are heavily dependent on variables which themselves are difficult to predict. We do not, for example, have a variable for any scientific advancement such as large-scale removal of atmospheric gas.
The cases of what happens when phosphates are added in rivers and lakes, tobacco smoke use, acid rain increase and ozone depletion gases released shows that you have not learned when to ignore the denier media that does have interest on sustaining profits over livelihoods.

Here you do make a reference on a variable like the scientists ignoring the appearance of large-scale removal of atmospheric gas.

Well, I would like a pony too.

Science would be wasting time indeed by entering a variable that has a very uncertain value, as it turns out I do remember how annoying it was for the IPCC to basically ignore the issue of accelerated loss of ice over land in the polar regions and glaciers. Until recently the reports just pointed out that a moderate ocean rise would be expected by very likely normal runoff and ocean thermal expansion. But that was provided if there was no acceleration observed on the loss of ice over land.

The estimates of ocean rise are going up because indeed the acceleration has been observed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTDdY1UG7ug
Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss - James Balog

It would indeed had helped to add the expected values, but if the expected acceleration had not taken place I see that then the contrarians would had a field day.

Well, they still have a field day because they do not care that even though scientists waited to get more accurate numbers for the likely acceleration contrarians demonstrated that they do not care at all about science or evidence when it shows up.
  #75  
Old Yesterday, 06:46 PM
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Pedant View Post
LOL. Associating bad hurricanes with climate change means that, when one comes along, the associator promotes it as evidence that climate change is upon us. “Told ya!” Come on. You get that. And generally the associator specifically does NOT go into any detail about the subtleties, which is why it is such an unscientific association. That is the whole point. There is absolutely no science that says hurricanes are harbingers of anthropogenic global warming.
I see that you're confusing science with some unnamed subset of the popularizers of science, which is a favorite ploy of climate change deniers. Whether you are one or not -- and I'm not judging -- you share with deniers certain notable traits, such as this confusion between science and populist proselytizing, and then throwing around invectives like "alarmist" with the unstated poisonous implication that the science itself is suspect if its conclusions are troubling. Among the "alarmists" by your definition would be, I assume, the national science academies of every advanced nation in the world whose positions on this issue are unequivocal.

Your statement is false because the actual science, of course, does qualify its conclusions with all the caveats and statements of uncertainty commensurate with the evidence. Nevertheless some broad generalizations can be made, and they have been made, extensively by the IPCC on the subject of extreme weather and by notable hurricane researchers like Kerry Emanuel on hurricanes specifically. I quoted this before but you ignored it then and presumably will ignore it again:
We find that in the Pacific, as well as in the Atlantic, there's this excellent correlation between this measure of hurricane energy that we developed [the PDI] and the temperature of the tropical ocean. It's very in concert on all kinds of different time scales. And the amount of energy expended by hurricanes has gone up in the last 50 years by somewhere between 50 and 80 percent.

If all we had to go on was the hurricane data, I don't think we would be terribly alarmed. We'd just say, well, it's been changing the last 25, 30 years, so what? It's the correlation with sea surface temperature and the fact that that trend is unprecedented for a long time that has us worried.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/science...7-hott-nf.html
The rest of your screed can be summed up as confidently stating -- as a matter of apparently self-evident fact -- that climate change will be the least of our problems. You state as indisputable fact that "anthropogenic climate change is nowhere near the top of the things that are going to ruin this world ecologically for the next generations" and "it is highly unlikely we will get right which anthropogenic or natural disasters end up being the most catastrophic ones". Stating as fact what are actually ill-informed armchair opinions is surely the very essence of "unscientific". A scientific assessment of climate change impacts at various levels of global temperature change yields a plethora of serious impacts which, if examined carefully and in depth, can be seen to amount to a systemic environmental catastrophe if allowed to proceed much beyond two Celsius degrees. The consequences are serious enough that they affect not just quality of life for all of us but survival for millions and, as the US military has noted in their own assessments, may have major impacts on global security because of disproportionate impacts on the poorest and most vulnerable regions of the world.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017