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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
And funny, you told all that you were ignoring me.
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
Hadcrut4
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
Crutem4
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
Hadsst2
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nope, that is just cherry picking and making dishonest points.
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
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
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.
Not only did I see it, I predicted it in my post.
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…
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.
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.
This is the Holy Trinity. Now go get your robe and bow down to…which one is the Greek God of climate change?
[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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
I guess I did predict what happened. It’s almost like I’ve seen this movie before.