# "Climate Change" Was Supposed to Spawn Monster Storms-What Happened? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 10, 2013, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982 "2013-05-10T12:10:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/241 "2013-06-13T20:50:57Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > And here we go again. An _“increase in regional droughts,”_ he says. If there are more such droughts in years to come, doubtless you’ll declare victory; if fewer, doubtless you’ll say it’s the not the number but the intensity of said droughts. > > (And if someone asks, ahead of time, what hypothetical evidence would prove you wrong about those droughts? Why, you can of course refuse to provide any specifics about falsification – as you now do with regard to the intensity of hurricanes.) Welcome to modern climate science. Where no true climate scientist is ever wrong. About anything. And anyone who points out a flaw is a denier. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2013, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/242 "2013-06-13T22:44:43Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I wrote that (a) I have no idea what evidence could even _hypothetically_ prove your prediction wrong, and that (b) FXMastermind likewise can’t say; FXMastermind’s reply: _“I stopped even trying.”_ It’d sure be hard for either of us to think we’re contradicting you; we don’t know what your position is. > > (I added that, if anyone here can say what you think would falsify your position, I’d love to hear it. I repeat the invitation: if anybody believes you’ve made an actual prediction about what’s to come with hurricane intensity, they can easily prove it: mention what, at a minimum, would have to occur in years to come before we can say, _Yep, GIGObuster was completely incorrect; the exact opposite happened._) Piffle, no one among the vast majority of dopers that are into science can support your peculiar useless points. And until I see scientists like \*\*Colibri \*\*and \*\*jshore \*\*telling me that I’m wrong, I do not need to get your sorry seal of approval. And if you can not notice the pathetic effort by FXMastermind (Virtually all the links he found confirmed the point I was making about the increase in intensity of the hurricanes, **and there was even a cite from Emmanuel** ) then the fact that you missed that FXMastermind has confirmed what I was saying and you did not notice how clueless he is in claiming that he is contradicting me, only demonstrates that you do not have clue on identifying who could be giving you good support. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/243 "2013-06-14T01:07:16Z")
> [@](#): > > Piffle, no one among the vast majority of dopers that are into science can support your peculiar useless points. And until I see scientists like Colibri and jshore telling me that I’m wrong, I do not need to get your sorry seal of approval. It’s not about being right or wrong. It’s that, no matter what happens, you can’t possibly turn out to be wrong. You are, as it were, _not even wrong._ Someone says a meteor will wipe out half of mankind in the near future; what’s “the near future”? He won’t say, though he rules out various guesses. Someone claims women’s brains are inferior to men’s brains; what could prove his claim false? He refuses to specify, instead asking you to use your imagination. Is he incorrect? No, technically, I suppose he isn’t; he’s just vague to the point of being useless; no matter what happens in years to come, no matter what evidence piles up, his general claim can remain uncontradicted by any specifics. It’s irrelevant to say that **Colibri** and **jshore** aren’t telling you _that_ you’re wrong; how could your predictions of what’s yet to come be wrong, at this point? It’d be relevant if one of them could do what I can’t, and what **FXMastermind** can’t, and what **Ají de Gallina** apparently can’t: read your posts, and spell out what hypothetical evidence could prove your predictions about future hurricanes false. > [@](#): > > And if you can not notice the pathetic effort by FXMastermind (Virtually all the links he found confirmed the point I was making about the increase in intensity of the hurricanes, and there was even a cite from Emmanuel) then the fact that you missed that FXMastermind has confirmed what I was saying and you did not notice how clueless he is in claiming that he is contradicting me, only demonstrates that you do not have clue on identifying who could be giving you good support. How can he confirm what you’re saying? _I have no idea what you’re saying._ Oh, sure, I followed you when you said you’re not predicting an increase in the number of hurricanes – and when you said you’re not predicting an increase in the number of Cat 4 and 5 hurricanes, or an increase in the number of Cat 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land – and, by all that’s holy, I’d be right there alongside **Colibri** and **jshore** in praising you for such accuracy and clarity. But when it comes to what you’re actually predicting, I don’t see that anyone reading your posts stands a chance of figuring out what you think would prove you wrong. And so you go on, spending time and effort composing reply after reply instead of simply ending my objection. You talk about it, noting that **Colibri** and **jshore** don’t say you’re wrong – when all you need to do is spell out what hypothetical evidence would, in fact, make **Colibri** and **jshore** say _“Huh, turns out that GIGObuster’s prediction was utterly wrong.”_ ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/244 "2013-06-14T02:38:37Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > And so you go on, spending time and effort composing reply after reply instead of simply ending my objection. I’ve run into this sort of thing on many other forums. Pointing it out won’t help, because as you probably know by now, to make a prediction means having to be accountable at some future date. Like how right now the predictions made back in 2004/2005 turned out to be very much just hot air. This doesn’t actually mean much, even when the staunch supporter of global warming postures and puffs about. Why? Because there wasn’t any warming since 2004. In fact, both ocean/land temps globally have gone down since 2002. This places the entire thing in some weird climate conundrum, in which it can’t be both ways. (well, yes, some people want it both ways, but in science it can’t be both) The NH temps actually matter most because we are discussing NH weather, hurricanes. Not Pacific typhoons, which actually matter, but nobody really talks about them much. In any case, if hurricanes had increased, either in strength or numbers, since 2004, it wouldn’t mean warming was the cause. Because there wasn’t warming! You can check any dataset you want, they all show a decrease in global temps since 2002. Land and SSTs. I know a lot of people probably don’t know this. Once the warmer discovers this, they quickly hand wave it away as too short a time period yadday yadda yadda, which means nothing. But if you are trying to connect the nebulous “more intense” storms to global warming, you actually need to have global warming happening when the storms happen. So we have this odd situation where it might actually be the case that warmer SSTs in the N Atlantic can lead to stronger storms. There just hasn’t been a long enough time period, or warm enough water to know yet. Meanwhile, you can go skiing in the French Alps right now. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/245 "2013-06-14T03:36:12Z")
After that nonsense there is not much to say, actually this suffices: it is completely wrong to claim that there has been no warming, and regarding hurricanes this is important, the oceans is where the action is happening. > **[Guemas et al. Attribute Slowed Surface Warming to the Oceans](https://skepticalscience.com/guemas-attribute-slowed-surface-warming-to-oceans.html)** > > Recently we discussed a paper by Balmaseda et al., which found that the warming of the world's oceans has accelerated, and the heat accumulation in the oceans since 1999 is the most sustained warming period on record (over the past 50 years).  That... > [@](#): > > Guemas et al. (2013) adds to the growing body of evidence that the slowed global surface warming over the past 10–15 years can in large part be explained by an increase in ocean heat storage. In short, global warming continues, it’s just mostly going into the oceans for the time being. However, as Kevin Trenberth noted, that is not something we can expect to last. It is a temporary change, and sooner or later the surface warming will return with a vengeance. As lead author Virginie Guemas noted, > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > "If it is only related to natural variability then the rate of warming will increase soon" > > > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/246 "2013-06-14T04:02:53Z")
Even if you believe that somehow, all the warming has, like magic, gone down to the deep ocean, it doesn’t change the SSTs, nor the fact that there has been no warming since 2002. In fact, there has been a decrease since 2002. It might very well be true that somehow all this extra heat has somehow defied all expectations, and warm water is now sinking deep into the sea, (despite all our experience which says warm water rises, not sinks). This doesn’t change the facts, That both air and sea surface temperatures (SSTs) have gone down since 2002. So we can even accept the magic hypothesis, that warm water now sinks deep into the ocean. It doesn’t matter in regards to the issue of storms. Deep ocean water temperatures are not the reason given for “more intense” storms. Warmer surface temps are. So it actually is one of those weird things. It can’t be both ways. Either warmer SSTs lead to stronger storms, or they don’t. If you want to say storms have gotten bigger, stronger, “more intense”, whatever you call it, because of warming, then there has to be warming! The hilarious part of this? If the warmist simply admits reality, that there has been no warming in the last 11 years, then the idea that warmer means worse storms could still be put out there as a viable concept. The reason storms haven’t become worse? No warming. But that means you have to look at the data and admit there has been no warming. It’s an impossible situation for anyone who wants there to be warming! You can’t have it both ways. Not that the facts are going to get in the way of the stern authoritarian who wants to frighten us all with visions of a terrible future. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/247 "2013-06-14T04:30:06Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Even if you believe that somehow, all the warming has, like magic, gone down to the deep ocean, it doesn’t change the SSTs, nor the fact that there has been no warming since 2002. In fact, there has been a decrease since 2002. As pointed out before many times, that is a discredited line. The only use of that is to show all how discredited are your sources. > **[Global cooling - Is global warming still happening?](https://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm)** > > \Empirical measurements of the Earth's heat content show the planet is still accumulating heat and global warming is still happening. Surface temperatures can show short-term cooling when heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean,... > [@](#): > > What the science says… > > Empirical measurements of the Earth’s heat content show the planet is still accumulating heat and global warming is still happening. Surface temperatures can show short-term cooling when heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean, which has a much greater heat capacity than the air. And funny, you told all that you were ignoring me. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/248 "2013-06-14T05:42:33Z")
I can see why an alarmists would want to avoid looking at the data. Pretty much all of the credible datasets for global temperatures (land or sea or combined) clearly show a cooling trend since 2002. Hadcrut3 [http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/trend](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/trend) Hadcrut4 [http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/trend](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/trend) RSS MSU [http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2000/plot/rss/from:2002/trend](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2000/plot/rss/from:2002/trend) Crutem4 [http://woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/from:2000/plot/crutem4vgl/from:2002/trend](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/from:2000/plot/crutem4vgl/from:2002/trend) RSS land only [http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/from:2000/plot/rss-land/from:2002/trend](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/from:2000/plot/rss-land/from:2002/trend) Hadsst2 [http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2000/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/trend](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2000/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/trend) Hadsst3 [http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2000/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2002/trend](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2000/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2002/trend) Again, an 11 year period that shows a downturn does not mean the warming is done. I brought it up to show why claiming warming in the last decade has resulted in “more intense” storms, or whatever it is being claimed. You can’t claim warming caused worse storms, when there was no warming. You can fall back to the “all those years were warm years”, but that just makes it worse for your argument. If all the years were the same, warm, and that resulted in worse storms, what the hell happened? Or the opposite as well. Looking at a longer period, you can see the obvious global warming that ends in 2002. [http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/to:2002/trend](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/to:2002/trend) Which is why the “more intense” storms thing is so interesting. If that is true, the data shows why it didn’t happen. If you insist it did happen, it wasn’t due to increasing SSTs, or global temperature increase. It’s a conundrum. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/249 "2013-06-14T05:56:48Z")
It’s because the warming stopped (actually temps decreased slightly, over an 11 year period) that we are seeing various reasons to “explain” it, while sticking with the basic “CO2 drives the climate” hypothesis. > **[Science News: Latest Development and Breakthroughs in Technology, Health, and...](https://www.nbcnews.com/science?lite)** > > Find the latest science news articles, photos and videos covering space, the environment, human development and more on NBCNews.com. > [@](#): > > The deep oceans have recently been soaking up much of the excess heat trapped under the ever-thickening blanket of greenhouse gases that humans pump into the atmosphere, according to a recent study. > > The finding may help explain why the pace of global warming at the surface has slowed in recent years compared to the 1990s, a phenomenon that has left members of the climate science community scratching their heads. It didn’t “slow down”, as the data in the previous post shows. It actually reversed, but nobody promoting “global warming” can bring themselves to actually say that. Of course picking a start point to try and make a point isn’t proof of much, like how in 2009 the 11 year period shows a flat trend. > **[Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs](https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/to:2013/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2009/trend)** That simply shows that in 2009 warming had been flat for 11 years. It’s ironic that now the last 11 years shows cooling. It’s not that important, unless we are discussing warming and storms, which we are. It’s amusing in some ineffable sense, to see the data showing reality, but the shrill insulting voices of fear still want us to believe warming hasn’t stopped. It’s just hiding. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/250 "2013-06-14T07:39:39Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I can see why an alarmists would want to avoid looking at the data. Pretty much all of the credible datasets for global temperatures (land or sea or combined) clearly show a cooling trend since 2002. > > Hadcrut3 > [Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/trend) > > Hadcrut4 > [Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/trend) > > RSS MSU > [Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2000/plot/rss/from:2002/trend) > > Crutem4 > [Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/from:2000/plot/crutem4vgl/from:2002/trend) > > RSS land only > [Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/from:2000/plot/rss-land/from:2002/trend) > > Hadsst2 > [Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2000/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/trend) > > Hadsst3 > [Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2000/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2002/trend) > Again, an 11 year period that shows a downturn does not mean the warming is done. I brought it up to show why claiming warming in the last decade has resulted in “more intense” storms, or whatever it is being claimed. You can’t claim warming caused worse storms, when there was no warming. > > You can fall back to the “all those years were warm years”, but that just makes it worse for your argument. If all the years were the same, warm, and that resulted in worse storms, what the hell happened? Or the opposite as well. > > Looking at a longer period, you can see the obvious global warming that ends in 2002. > > [Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/to:2002/trend) > > Which is why the “more intense” storms thing is so interesting. If that is true, the data shows why it didn’t happen. If you insist it did happen, it wasn’t due to increasing SSTs, or global temperature increase. > > It’s a conundrum. Nope, that is just cherry picking and making dishonest points. > **[AP Demolishes Latest Climate Skeptics Talking Point](https://www.texasobserver.org/ap-demolishes-latest-climate-skeptics-talking-point/)** > > One of the more popular notions currently circulating among global warming skeptics is that the Earth has entered a cooling phase. The “theory” is based on a dishonest and faulty reading of temperature data from the last decade. This week, the AP... > [@](#): > > One of the more popular notions currently circulating among global warming skeptics is that the Earth has entered a cooling phase. The “theory” is based on a dishonest and faulty reading of temperature data from the last decade. This week, the AP does a very thorough job debunking the ‘global cooling’ nonsense. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Global warming skeptics base their claims on an unusually hot year in 1998. Since then, they say, temperatures have dropped — thus, a cooling trend. But it’s not that simple. > > > > ``` > > Since 1998, temperatures have dipped, soared, fallen again and are now rising once more. Records kept by the British meteorological office and satellite data used by climate skeptics still show 1998 as the hottest year. However, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998. Published peer-reviewed scientific research generally cites temperatures measured by ground sensors, which are from NOAA, NASA and the British, more than the satellite data. > > > > The recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA’s climate data center to re-examine its temperature data. It found no cooling trend. > > > > “The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record,” said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. “Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming.” > > > > ``` > > What I especially like about this approach is that the reporter avoids politicizing the analysis by submitting “blind” data to the statisticians. That way, the analysts have only raw data to work with and no one can accuse them of reaching conclusions based on desired outcomes. > > This is in marked contrast to the climate denialist camp: Their whole point is to “debunk” global warming; they’ll twist and distort information until they can get the conclusion they want. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/251 "2013-06-14T07:51:34Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > It’s because the warming stopped (actually temps decreased slightly, over an 11 year period) that we are seeing various reasons to “explain” it, while sticking with the basic “CO2 drives the climate” hypothesis. > > [Science News: Latest Development and Breakthroughs in Technology, Health, and More | NBC News](http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/11/17708881-where-did-global-warming-go-the-deep-ocean-experts-say?lite) > > It didn’t “slow down”, as the data in the previous post shows. It actually reversed, but nobody promoting “global warming” can bring themselves to actually say that. > > Of course picking a start point to try and make a point isn’t proof of much, like how in 2009 the 11 year period shows a flat trend. > > [Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/to:2013/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2009/trend) > > That simply shows that in 2009 warming had been flat for 11 years. It’s ironic that now the last 11 years shows cooling. It’s not that important, unless we are discussing warming and storms, which we are. > > It’s amusing in some ineffable sense, to see the data showing reality, but the shrill insulting voices of fear still want us to believe warming hasn’t stopped. It’s just hiding. Wrong also, this is just the same old denial of the warming, it continues. [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/2012-global-temperatures-10th-highest-record](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/2012-global-temperatures-10th-highest-record) > [@](#): > > According to NOAA scientists, the globally averaged temperature for 2012 marked the 10th warmest year since record keeping began in 1880. It also marked the 36th consecutive year with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last below-average annual temperature was 1976. Including 2012, all 12 years to date in the 21st century (2001–2012) rank among the 14 warmest in the 133-year period of record. Only one year during the 20th century―1998―was warmer than 2012. Yeah, that is the same NOAA that early in the thread some tried to make them say the opposite of what they conclude, bottom line, there is no good explanation from the deniers telling us why the cold years in the cycles (that is the La Nina years) are \*\*warmer \*\*than the ones before. [http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/files/2013/03/Enso-global-temp-anomalies.png](http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/files/2013/03/Enso-global-temp-anomalies.png) ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/252 "2013-06-14T16:49:07Z")
**FXMastermind** did you see how he dismissed the datasets without telling you why it is wrong or how you misrepresented it? It’s always: a) “Piffle” b) “Discredited source” c) A pompous skeptical science link. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/253 "2013-06-14T17:06:38Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > **FXMastermind** did you see how he dismissed the datasets without telling you why it is wrong or how you misrepresented it? Not only did I see it, I predicted it in my post. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > You can check any dataset you want, they all show a decrease in global temps since 2002. Land and SSTs. I know a lot of people probably don’t know this. Once the warmer discovers this, they quickly hand wave it away as too short a time period yadday yadda yadda, which means nothing. I guess I should have included “they will talk about how those years are still among the hottest ever”. Anything to avoid discussing what the data shows. I mean, I linked to the actual data used, it’s pretty hard to wiggle out at that point, but, as I said… > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Not that the facts are going to get in the way of the stern authoritarian who wants to frighten us all with visions of a terrible future. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/254 "2013-06-14T17:57:37Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, that is just cherry picking and making dishonest points. > > [AP Demolishes Latest Climate Skeptics Talking Point - The Texas Observer](http://www.texasobserver.org/ap-demolishes-latest-climate-skeptics-talking-point/) AP Demolishes Latest Climate Skeptics Talking Point by Forrest Wilder Published on Tuesday, **October 27, 2009** , at 12:00 CST If you bother to read the piece, it’s obvious it has nothing to do with my point about 2002-2013. As usual, the point is ignored, a gish gallup occurs, and the usual suspect does a victory dance, never learning a thing. I was careful to point out the decline from 2002 isn’t important except in regards to the claims that global warming has increased the “intensity” of hurricanes. Not that the actual subject of this topic matters to the alarmists. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/255 "2013-06-14T20:03:02Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > **FXMastermind** did you see how he dismissed the datasets without telling you why it is wrong or how you misrepresented it? > > It’s always: > a) “Piffle” > b) “Discredited source” > c) A pompous skeptical science link. The misrepresentation is clear, it is just cherrypicking by denying that there was more than just looking at the last 11 years, and once again the no explanation whatsoever on why the la nina years are getting warmer is not coming from the disinformation brigade. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/256 "2013-06-14T20:04:32Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > **FXMastermind** did you see how he dismissed the datasets without telling you why it is wrong or how you misrepresented it? > > It’s always: > a) “Piffle” > b) “Discredited source” > c) A pompous skeptical science link. This is the Holy Trinity. Now go get your robe and bow down to…which one is the Greek God of climate change? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/257 "2013-06-14T20:05:55Z")
[quote=“FXMastermind, post:253, topic:657982”] Not only did I see it, I predicted it in my post. And it means nothing as it rejects what the ocean data says, and also what researchers report. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > I guess I should have included “they will talk about how those years are still among the hottest ever”. Anything to avoid discussing what the data shows. I mean, I linked to the actual data used, it’s pretty hard to wiggle out at that point, but, as I said… We already discussed it, experts and people that look at those cherry picks are telling us that the reason is to just keep pushing dishonest points. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/258 "2013-06-14T20:09:12Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > This is the Holy Trinity. Now go get your robe and bow down to…which one is the Greek God of climate change? Nope, there was a NOAA link also, but thank you for showing all that you are not paying attention, and as Science Friday on NPR reported, the NOAA guys are clearly not your friends. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/259 "2013-06-14T20:31:53Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > AP Demolishes Latest Climate Skeptics Talking Point > by Forrest Wilder Published on Tuesday, **October 27, 2009** , at 12:00 CST > > If you bother to read the piece, it’s obvious it has nothing to do with my point about 2002-2013. As usual, the point is ignored, a gish gallup occurs, and the usual suspect does a victory dance, never learning a thing. As pointed before, virtually all your links did deal with the increase in intensity of hurricanes, the real way one identify a Gish gallop is when the effort is to mislead. The attempt in this case was to discredit a point by misrepresenting what the actual scientists reported, in this case the pathetic effort was to claim that I reported that the scientists did not mentioned anything about the intensity increase the reverse of what I was claiming, but still continued. The really silly thing is to claim that that was not the point being made originally. It was even more sad that you also used one of the papers from Emmanuel that I referred early to support my point in that Gish gallop of links and quotes… So the silliness only works by not paying attention and not actually reading the actual science, the one that is not learning is not me; the point stands, it is dishonest to look at just the last previous years of surface temperatures alone and deny that the warming is not continuing. [http://climatecrocks.com/2013/03/25/global-warming-continues-acceleration/](http://climatecrocks.com/2013/03/25/global-warming-continues-acceleration/) > [@](#): > > So the slowed warming at the surface is only temporary, and consistent with the ‘hiatus decades’ described by Meehl et al. (2011). The global warming end result will be the same, but the pattern of surface warming over time may be different than we expect. > > The real problem is that in the meantime, we have allowed the temporarily slowed surface warming to lull us into a false sense of security, with many people wrongly believing global warming has paused when in reality it has accelerated. > Global Warming Wake Up Call > > Perhaps the most important result of this paper is the confirmation that while many people wrongly believe global warming has stalled over the past 10–15 years, in reality that period is “the most sustained warming trend” in the past half century. Global warming has not paused, it has accelerated. > > The paper is also a significant step in resolving the ‘missing heat’ issue, and is a good illustration why arguments for somewhat lower climate sensitivity are fundamentally flawed if they fail to account for the warming of the oceans below 700 meters. > > Most importantly, everybody (climate scientists and contrarians included) must learn to stop equating surface and shallow ocean warming with global warming. In fact, as Roger Pielke Sr. has pointed out, “ocean heat content change [is] the most appropriate metric to diagnose global warming.” While he has focused on the shallow oceans, actually we need to measure global warming by accounting for all changes in global heat content, including the deeper oceans. Otherwise we can easily fool ourselves into underestimating the danger of the climate problem we face. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > I was careful to point out the decline from 2002 isn’t important except in regards to the claims that global warming has increased the “intensity” of hurricanes. And that not refutes the fact that Emmanuel and others already detected an increase in intensity, **it is not a claim** , but if you want to show all how clueless you are be my guest. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/260 "2013-06-14T20:32:27Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I can see why an alarmists would want to avoid looking at the data. Pretty much all of the credible datasets for global temperatures (land or sea or combined) clearly show a cooling trend since 2002. > > Hadcrut3 > [Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/trend) > > Hadcrut4 > [Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/trend) > > RSS MSU > [Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2000/plot/rss/from:2002/trend) > > Crutem4 > [Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/from:2000/plot/crutem4vgl/from:2002/trend) > > RSS land only > [Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/from:2000/plot/rss-land/from:2002/trend) > > Hadsst2 > [Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2000/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/trend) > > Hadsst3 > [Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2000/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2002/trend) > **You can fall back to the “all those years were warm years”** , but that just makes it worse for your argument. I guess I did predict what happened. It’s almost like I’ve seen this movie before. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982.md?page=14)