OP doesn’t say anything about “scientists need to be ridiculed” - Do you not see that you are projecting that sentiment onto the OP?
This is exactly what it says:
As you agree, the science is not indisputable in this area.
It’s a complex topic that is extremely difficult to model.
As pointed many times by me, it has been amusing to see you fight with yourself to get to it.
Actually it seems that you are not getting it, the OP is still a call to claim that the science is disputable by telling others that there has been no dispute and scientists were reporting that the number of Hurricanes and tornadoes should had increased. As it turns out, the scientists are reporting that there is uncertainty in the numbers coming, but less so in the intensity once they come.
As pointed before, many times by me also, the intention by contrarians is to apply this uncertainty to all the science, and to undermine other items identified as not beneficial in a warming world by the climate scientists.
Indeed, in the video Richard Alley makes the point that the uncertainties in extreme weather are not a reason to dismiss the science, nor the warnings regarding more certain effects of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
As for Al Gore, he is not a scientist, and it is really ignorant not to undertand by now why Gore is invoked:
Pretty much answers the question, doesn’t it? “They didn’t say what you said they said” and “What they did say may have come true.”
Why are we still arguing?
It’s like the current California fire season. The climate doesn’t tell us how many fires there will be – because most fires are caused by arson, and the climate doesn’t tell us how many arsonists there will be. But the climate tells us that whatever fires there are going to be will be worse because of higher temperatures and dryer forests.
No one knows (if I understand correctly) what causes a hurricane to form. What causes one to “nucleate” out of winds and currents in the first place. But it seems to be very clear that warm water makes them bigger and stronger once they get going. So, climate change doesn’t exactly say “There will be more hurricanes.” It seems to say, “If there are hurricanes, their average size and intensity may increase.”
(I’m no climate scientist. But…am I in the right ballpark?)
On the whole, Yes.
While the increase of energy and material in the background is well supported, other items regarding extreme weather events are a gamble, it is bad enough that there are still people that tell us that there is no problem and we should do nothing, when in real life uncertainty is not your friend. Since we know that some bad items are more certain the message is that we still have to act.
And I do like your fire example, I was planing to use a similar point in another thread.
I think the key word in there is “may”.
My point early on is that the climate models are not accurate enough to reliably make that prediction.
If the word “may” is used, then it’s probably ok because it’s just a prediction with a high level of uncertanity.
If you replace the word “may” with “will” then you are implying your climate model is accurate enough to make predictions like that. At which point you should provide the kind of detailed parameters surrounding your prediction that would allow everyone to confirm or deny the accuracy of the model.
If there are two competing scientists with two different climate models, the only way to determine which one is closer to accurate is that sort of test.
I realized something while I was contemplating actually responding to a blatant falsehood above.
Pseudo-scientists and cranks may actually be doing skeptics a favor by generating and repeating mantras, no matter what arguments are on the table. The discerning observer, especially the skeptical ones, don’t have to use belief to decide what is what, when the data is available. For example:
To cut to the chase, using 2002, 2003 or 2004 as a start year all shows the same thing. (woodfortrees.org)
For good measure here are the trends for 98,99 and 2000 as well. Nobody has to take somebodies opinion on this.
So when somebody says (or more likely just repeats what they read) that"Regarding the 2002 item, that trick also fails when the sources of that use 2003 as the starting point.", the ironic humor is thick and enjoyable.
Why would anyone say something so wrong when anyone can look at the data and see they are simply wrong? And even more mysterious, how can anyone be so blind as to not realize this is happening?
The strawman argument seems to be to try and talk about how “hot” the years were, rather than just admitting the trend is slightly down, which isn’t even important for the long term. It’s just a data point when discussing recent hurricane trends.
But even that small fact is so threatening to the “cause”, which is to generate fear and panic over the horrific future they “know” is coming.
Pathetic.
I brought up the trend because of the lack of increase in hurricane damage, strength, intensity or whatever else is being tossed about as “fact”.
If there is no increase in warming since 98, or 2002, (and there has not been), then it would make sense that there is no trend in hurricanes. In fact, if storms had been trending worse, it wouldn’t make sense, as the temps have not.
“But what about the SSTs? That’s more important that the air+sea data!”
OK so look at the data. 98,99,2000 trend lines
2001,2002,2003 trends
What I find so amusing about this special point in time, is that now the shrill voice of the alarmists wants to challenge the dataset, because it doesn’t show what they want it to.
When that fails, it’s back to how record warm the years have been. But nobody said they weren’t, and since they pretty much all were warm, with a very slight trend down, in regards to storm trends, well.
It’s amusing.
Perhaps, but that isn’t really fair. It gives a huge advantage to the scientist who turns out to be correct. And ignores the consensus approach, where belief matters more than those pesky facts.
Of course that is a demonstration to all that you are still not getting it, Emmanuel did not use models on this published research in the increase of intensity, it is based on real data.
Nope, it is a still a dishonest point as scientists independent statisticians and other propeller heads tell us, the real pathetic issue from you is that scientists do not limit themselves to the years you are cherry picking; the point stands, you are just a **failure **in demonstrating or offering any quotes from an organization or experts reporting that they are following your sorry say so’s.
Once again: if you want to demonstrate that it is not you who is doing the pseudoscience get me the evidence that scientific groups are supporting you on your cherry pick, if you can not find a science group that agrees with you, then a quote from a non political group that looks at pseudoscience to tell us so.
As it is, and as pointed before, your meta cognition is also a failure, virtually all serious groups that look at the pseudoscience agree that it is the deniers the ones that are following pseudoscience, and now, after so many years of this, putting themselves in the same column as creationists and Astrologers according to groups that look at all pseudoscience.
And the pesky fact here is that Emmanuel did not use models to come with the increase of the intensity in the hurricanes, once again the consensus is that the water vapor is increasing in the areas hurricanes pop up, and it is a huge factor on the harm hurricanes do.
As Richard Alley pointed out, there are a few missing pieces in this area, but there are others were they have the pieces, and when looking at the big picture, outside of extreme weather events, the science is more certain. And that includes the rise in temperature observed.
Pseudoscience however, persists with the straw men, cherry pickings and contradictory FUD to continue to pretend it is making good points.
I’m not sure how you can not understand this but I will try to explain it again.
Projecting into the future (even based on real data from the past) requires some sort of a model. Whether a computer model is explicitly used, or just a mathematical extrapolation of past data based on X variables, it’s still a model of how the various climate variables interact.
A (possibly) chaotic system, or even just a very complex system, like the environment may or may not lend itself to extrapolating like that. That’s why you need to perform tests to correct errors and fine tune the model until it’s reasonably accurate. Scientists admit themselves it’s uncertain, they are early on in the process.
Do you understand that any prediction requires some sort of a mathematical model of the interaction of the variables?
And of course you show all that you do not understand that that was the point, the OP is claiming that experts were telling us that they were certain that we where going to get more hurricanes and they were reporting that climate change was spawning them, NOT what they actually were reporting. But thanks once again for demonstrating my point that the OP was misleading.
Just one note regarding the warming detected that FXMastermind insists still that it is only a pseudoscience, people that do make a living of exposing pseudoscience almost always come to call maneuvers like that one -that looks only at the last years to declare that there is no warming- as the pseudoscience.
Here is doper Phil Plait from Slate/Discovery explaining:
Nope. What you keep accusing actually describes your behavior.
“You can make up any old nonsense and state it in a few seconds, but it takes much longer to show why it’s wrong and how things really are.” - Phil Plait
That describes what the pseudo-scientist is doing here. Honest graphs from reputable sources are the opposite of nonsense. Long winded gish gallops to try and tell us the data doesn’t mean what it does, that is nonsense.
The real humor is that the SSTs and global temps, for the period under discussion, actually support no increase due to increasing temperatures. Which supports the idea that we can’t know if warming can lead to an increase. Because we don’t have a long enough period to know yet.
Nah, your parroting of the things I say are just juvenile, it only shows the lack of support you truly have.
Remember, the implication from you when you claim that what I’m supporting is pseudo science implies that there is a mess of scientists out there supporting what you are claiming, it should therefore be easy to find a quote from a scientific organization or group that looks at pseudosciences that agrees with your methods or definitions.
Post them or shut up.
And this is a complete misrepresentation of what Phil Plait reports.
As pointed before, you are not capable of finding any quote from a scientists, scientific organizations or pseudoscience investigators that agrees with you.
On the other side, scientists are clear:
“So let this be clear: There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap.”
-Phil Plait, Gish galloping along. It’s actually hilarious. Phil seems to have drunk the Koolaid. Why? It’s really simple.
Really? How about showing a graph of the temperatures for the last 16 years? It’s not hard at all Phil. You can show three different ones at once!
You can even just show the one that best supports your belief! (cherry picking)
Of course his blog doesn’t include the one thing that would simply make his “denier enemies” look stupid. The actual temperature anomalies graph.
It’s not hard to do.
We’ve seen many of them here. Anyone can do it. Except Phil it seems.
If somebody is jumping up and down screaming “they are lying about the global average temperatures!”, but they won’t put up a graph to show the truth, it’s a bit much. Seriously.
It’s hilarious.
Let’s see if we can just agree or disagree on the basics.
You responded previously with “no model, real data”, I responded with the above question, which you chose to skip.
Are you willing to tell me whether you agree with that or not?
I assumed anyone discussing this would naturally understand and agree that a prediction requires a model whether it’s a computer simulation or just a mathematical model regarding interaction of variables. But your responses seem to imply you can make a prediction without having some underlying mathematical model of the physical system. I don’t know how that can happen.