"Climate Change" Was Supposed to Spawn Monster Storms-What Happened?

In My Humble Opinion
281

What? No. That’s not – no. I’m implying nothing of the sort. I’m explicitly stating the exact opposite. Are you “confused” again?

Take a step back. Put aside climate change for a moment. Say someone – call him Ogig – made a claim that, as it happens, in fact is impossibly vague. And when you ask him to clarify his own claim, he says (a) you’re stalling, and adds that (b) you’re “implying that there are other less vague answers you know”.

That would be a complete non sequitur, right? It’d make no sense. It’d be utterly incorrect.

You’re utterly incorrect now. That bit you bolded for emphasis could not be more wrong.

That’s all there is. There isn’t any more. I’m flatly saying I want to know what you think would prove your claim wrong – because I don’t know what you think would prove your claim wrong. That’s it. That’s all. Nothing else is being implied. Nothing else should be inferred: I don’t know the answer; you do.

The fact that you’re going on and on about my imagination proves it: if you’d already supplied the answer, you wouldn’t need me to imagine one!

“JAQ”? I’m expressly asking you to clarify your own claim – because you keep telling me to use my imagination, when you could supply the actual answer. I’m not trying to imply a particular answer, or suggest that I already know a less-vague one; I’m requesting yours, and flatly saying why, and full stop.

I’m not offering an interpretation! You’re offering a prediction – and instead of interpreting it myself, I’m asking you to interpret it!

The reason I ‘refuse to look for one’ is that I’m not the one making a prediction. By contrast, you are the one making a prediction; you don’t need to look for a cite, you can be your own cite! You could supply the answer right now! Given that you’re making a prediction, what’s the reason for your refusal?

282

Nonsense, in the thread going on right now about UFOs in GD shows, a proponent has been very vague on the “strong” evidence about a UFO encounter, It was not hard to find out that the records show that there was no confirmation of almost all the incidents that the UFO proponents claimed took place in an Air Force base.

Even when we do not know for sure what “strong” evidence he is talking about (indeed that is what vague is), the information is not hard to find and It shows how off base the UFO proponent is, so, regardless if he was vague all along it is not hard to find information to falsify his say so. The take home point here is that it should not be hard for you to find plenty of evidence on what can falsify a paper, unless you are already aware of how lousy the contrarian sources are indeed.

But the problem here is also that your definition of “vague” is silly, there is nothing vague on reporting that finding that finding that there is no significant increase on the intensity of the hurricanes on later surveys would be enough. It is really silly to claim that that and other simpler falsifications (Checking his data and finding a flaw) are vague.

283

Are you “confused” again? I’m not out to falsify a paper; I want to know what will falsify your predictions. How I can make that any clearer?

Again, checking his data and finding a flaw isn’t the point. As usual, you come right up to the edge before stopping short: I’m asking, repeatedly and straightforwardly, what you think will prove your vague prediction wrong.

Anyone reading this thread should be able to follow along: I keep noting that you can clarify your own remarks by providing falsification criteria, and you keep replying that I’ve failed to imagine the specifics you refuse to supply. Have you spent all this time mistakenly thinking I’ve been after something else?

284

Nope, you are only JAQ. The effort is only geared to get a second hand opinion from one that is pointing at the science so as to get some silly rhetorical point going and never bother to show if there is any understanding of the science coming from you in the first place, as there is no cite coming from you to show that indeed you were not cherry picking the quote from the scientist, the evidence is just accumulating that indeed you do not want to learn anything.

285

That’s simply incorrect; I’m asking you what you think would prove you wrong because I don’t know what you think would prove you wrong. Though you keep claiming otherwise, I’m not doing so to imply anything else: I’m flatly stating that I don’t know the answer because you refuse to spell it out.

I don’t need to hide that behind a JAQ approach; I’m telling you exactly what I think while patiently explaining why I’d like your answer.

It’s frankly bizarre that you’d call that a JAQ.

Good heavens, man; I keep asking what you think would prove your prediction wrong; what could be clearer evidence that I in fact, want to learn what you think would prove your prediction wrong? You refuse, and I ask again. You refuse, and I ask again. You make a slew of incorrect statements, and yet I persist precisely because I want to learn your answer.

Don’t tell me what you think my effort is geared to get; you may well be incorrect. Tell me what you think will prove you wrong; you can’t help but be correct.

286

It is not “may” it is.

287

Waldo Pepper

I appreciate what you are doing. I actually have no idea what sort of mental state a person can be in and not get what you have said, the point you are making. It’s why I mock certain kinds of people I run across online, which probably isn’t a very good method of persuading, but it’s also pretty obvious that nothing is going to matter.

Like pointing out that according to all the data, there has been this unexpected flatline, or worse, a slight decline (not significant, due to statistics) in global temp anomalies. I brought it up because of the hurricane intensity question. It’s not relevant in regards to the long term warming trend IMNSHO, which I stated up front.

Doesn’t matter. That simple fact is so threatening to the “warming movement” (whatever that is) that it can’t be acknowledged. It doesn’t matter.

I looked at the North Atlantic and global hurricane data. Certainly no increase of late, using total energy as a measure. In fact, quite a drop since the peak in 2005/2006, which would seem very odd if hurricane energy was related to global heat energy.

Which is why I brought in the global temperature anomalies. Looking at the recent trend, be it due to deep ocean heating, increased pollution, clouds or the quiet sun (or all of that), the measured SSTs and troposphere data show a cooling trend. (even with the massive 2010 warmth).

The reaction to finding out the trend is negative since 2002 isn’t unexpected, but it certainly is lacking in anything of value. I saw the 2002-to-present trend data mentioned in a paper on another subject. So I checked and sure enough, there is this slight downward trend, which was surprising. But not nearly as much as finding out about the widespread boreal winter cooling, that starts in 88.

It’s a shame there isn’t a single global warming topic here, for discussing general information. But obviously that would be a disaster.

288

Past experience only shows that the idea is to defend a cherry pick to death.

Not my problem that you guys are getting the fame of cherry pickers over here.

Only that the scientific organizations, even the ones cherry picked to say what you want conclude the opposite of what you claim.

And local conditions are acknowledged, it is a common factor that denial sources even deny that scientists also deal with that acknowledgement. Once again, it is not enough to override the big -non cherry picked- picture.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-2-2.html

The disaster is being avoided by not citing properly, but it seems that you are aware of how shitty your sources are. I noticed that when shown how acute your cherry picking is then no cites are coming.

As pointed before, not even NOAA is listening to any of your sources. Scientists are talking now with the understanding that the points of the false skeptics have no weight at all where it counts.

http://m.npr.org/programs/all/5/191614377

So, that is the disaster for the false skeptics, not even the real skeptical scientists deny the warming. And even the ones that do acknowledge the warming are getting the reasons for the warming wrong.

http://climatecrocks.com/2011/09/07/bad-week-for-roy-wrong-way-spencer/

http://climatecrocks.com/2013/03/19/measuring-temps-no-thermometers/

Point here is that that is one of the main reasons why NOAA and other scientific groups go for the current consensus, is that the contrarians are constantly getting wrong. And worse are the bloggessors that have no science and continue to mislead or cherry pick, slightly useful for discussions in an internet forum (To discredit the ones pushing their sorry denial points) but completely useless where it counts.

289

Sometimes. But in regards to this topic, certainly some people claimed they did know, and now that time has shown them to be wrong, it’s easy enough to simply say they were wrong.

Same for the fact that warming has not continued as the models predicted. IMHO this does not mean there isn’t change happening, because there certainly is. It’s looking very much like the climate change happening doesn’t fit the insane claims some people made about it. Not that you see many people admitting anything, much less being wrong.

290

And scientists were the ones that found that error, so much for being alarmists. And this also my point here, anyone can read that you did link to sources that actually supported what I said, It was a snapshot of how scientists concluded that there is no trend on the number of hurricanes that will come in a warming world, but there is already an observed increase in the intensity, and that increase in intensity does not depend only in the category number of the hurricane.

And you are not even right, once again, the scientists do not depend on computer models, not even the item we are focusing is based on computer models, Emmanuel is using the current data to report on the found increase in intensity.

And your position depends on this being a conspiracy, scientists do not support your say so’s.

Sources:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO8WrE63__I (inside “Show More”)

291

I imagine that even if we had CO2 at 600 ppm and ice sheets 3 meters thick for 3 centuries and still it’d be
a) “Piffle”
b) “Discredited source”
c) A pompous skeptical science link.

for example when 73 climate models(basically all of them plus all IPCC reports) are warmer than actual measurements it’s still be
a) “Piffle”
b) “Discredited source”
c) A pompous skeptical science link.

292

And thak you for showing all how difficult is for you to check the last cite. For anyone else it is clear that the last poster is proud to remain ignorant of how scientists do not rely on computer models nor the IPCC. Sad to see how proud they remain even if they pile up on demonstrating all how off base they are.

293

If you thought that any of my post was an argument then there is very little I can do to help you.

294

You have the name of 73 datasets, all publicly avilable.
73 chances of proving me wrong.
You try to make people read those unsefferable sks links or greenman’s soul-sucking videos on youtube. I like the straight quote to the real scientific data.

They DON’T rely on models? How can they tell us that the temperature will be higher in 100 years? Palantîri?
The IPCC casus belli is their projections, done by computer modelling.So, if they don’t use computer modelling and the actual onserbations show no warming, how can they tell us it will be hotter?

295

It was not Greenman but science writer Peter Hadfield, AKA Potholer54 but we knew already that you have trouble following.

And no, there is no need to show that you are wrong, you are not even wrong.

Missing the point also, and spectacularly, if you had looked at the evidence you would had seen that the projections are based on basic physics and what the atmosphere will most likely do when more CO2 is added.

And you should had learn by now on not to rely on “I’m never telling all my groupies my reason for my site to exist was lie” Anthony Watts.

And yes, those are the sources people like Aji de gallina looks up to. The image he linked was coming from the Watts site, as usual, full of deniers looking at good data and just cherry picking it by the non scientists at WUWT.

296

So, we’re still on:
a) “Piffle”
b) “Discredited source”
c) A pompous skeptical science link.

BTW, the reference to reenman wa a genral view on your general posting style.
You still can refute the straight number from the actual sources. It’s so sad.
Are you afrid of numbers?

297

Did not say it in the past post

It was, I take your lack of defense of it as an acknowledgement that me and others that look at pseudoscience are correct on what people like Watts pushes.

Not use also in the past post. But thank you for now broadcasting to all how everybody else should see you, there is ignorance and the there is a willful one. Skeptical science is a resource that links to the published science, even conservative scientists recommend it, so not giving up on this “killing the messenger” fallacy only shows to all the kind of debater you are.

Nope, the one that is afraid of information you, and as past experience and this one shows the numbers in the image are good, but not used exclusively to report what average temperatures we are headed when CO2 levels increase. But that is not the point I’m making, once again what the scientists reported on the increase of intensity of the hurricanes is based on data obtained from the field, not made on a computer model.

298

You don’t have to say
a) “Piffle”
b) “Discredited source”
c) A pompous skeptical science link.

it’s that ALL your answers go down to at least one of them, aside from never actually engaging the numbers.

Still the 73 models plus 4 IPCC reports + the new one due this year (all of which have all overshot actual temperatures.
Got numbers or only more.
I read Sks myself. If you’re onyl contribution to CC/AGW thread is posting link to them, then simply, on your first post say: “read sks” and be done with it.
I’d rather debate with someone who has actual opinions or actual grasp of the numbers.

299

Are you serious?

Waldo asks a simple question: what is the falsifiable criteria regarding storm predictions?

GIGO ignores, insults, evades, etc. for 6 pages now.
Are you able to explain why a prediction shouldn’t be specific enough to be falsifiable?

300

Nope, as usual you are still wrong. there is more than just SKS and as shown before you continue to rely on poisoned wells of information for “balance” that is called false equivalence"

It is a false equivalence as places like WUWT uses anonymous and non-experts to give deniers a sense of “balance”. The fact is that places that make a business of identifying pseudoscience do know what the science is: