Meh, keep digging, everyone can see that you are are incapable of finding good support for your cherry picking, once again, not even the groups that investigate pseudo science fall for your silly attempts at “science”
So, that is three examples already of scientists and people that check for pseudoscience are telling us what the score is, do you have any recognized scientists or people that debunk pseudoscience that are supporting your silly points?
After several times of saying “smaller number of total storms” you say
how does that square with
It’s either
a) Not fewer or more or
b) Fewer
Nope, read it again for comprehension, as even the interviewer says, it is an exercise done “at the risk” of cherry pickers like you to make hay from it, one has to look at the published science to get a better picture, in the end, the consensus is clear, the intensity is increasing thanks to all the material that is accumulating in the background thanks to global warming.
[/QUOTE]
Let’s review the actual question:
No gun, no mention of cherry pickers.
Furthermore, if , Professor Kerry Emanuel of the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Named one of Time Magazine’s 100 Most Influential People in 2006 can be forced to give an unscientific answer by a no name interviewer pitching softballs at him, then it’d be ok to cast a doubt into any other statement he has.
Also, he doesn’t say
(my bolding)
You’re saying that there is a consensus that the intensity is increasing
he ACTUALLY says
(my bolding)
Expect
is expected
some indication
data a bit tenous
nobody has a great deal of confidence
No mention of consensus.
Whom should I believe?
The anonymous guy on the web saying consensus or the ACTUAL profesional saying he’s expects but not quite sure?
I vote for anonymous web guy.
Nobody needs to tell us the score, when we can look at the scoreboard. That’s what is so hilarious. If somebody says the data shows no warming since 1998, or 2002, or whenever, you just look at it. There is no need to have an expert assure us what is measured.
Of course if somebody is claiming it means something else, that is another story. In this case, the only thing is the relationship with hurricane trends, and how they relate to SSTs or global warming. But if they claim is “since 2002 there has been no warming trend”, and that is exactly what the data shows, it’s not rocket science. It’s temperature data.
GIGObuster, are you a climate scientist?
I’m not.
The reason I ask is about the model thing. You don’t seem to want to answer the question and you even seem to think you can make predictions without a model.
If a model isn’t being used then the only alternative I can think of would be some sort of pattern matching that might get close to past results but you wouldn’t have confidence in future predictions because you wouldn’t be able to understand and verify the underlying model.
The published science, you are missing once again that the interviewer told him to make an educated guess, not coming from the peer reviewed science, and yes I told everyone many times before that the intent of many contrarians is to find contradictions on posters in a forum to keep telling themselves that they are putting down the science or the scientists. Mega Fail.
But keep digging, others already know how silly your efforts are when avoiding the science. That in this specific case as Richard Alley and many others report there is uncertainty. The consensus remains, all that energy and material in the background is not just going to be left there in the background once a hurricane comes, regardless if there is less or more of them coming.
The experts are telling us it is a dishonest cherry picking move. So there as you are showing here that you are incapable of finding cites that support your cherry picking.
And once again, that remains a dishonest point, unless you can show other experts that claim that it is a honest thing to do, you are just babbling.
Can you show where he was told to make an educated guess?
I’ll post to the full question again so that you can highlight it.
She’s asking to simplify, not to make an educated guess.
The question is direct, it’s the whole point of the article and not a side point.
I don’t care what “contrarians” say. I care about what I say and the quotes I give. Other people can defend themselves.
Not what I remember paleoclimatolgists are doing, once again, they are using real data, not obtained from models that look to the future, to tell us what CO2 was doing in the earth of the past, as Peter Hadfield reported, unless CO2 has reformed his ways, there is already a baseline of the warming we can expect with the current rise of CO2 in the atmosphere.
And no I’m not a climate scientist, but I have experience in Information Technology, very handy when looking for what the scientists are actually reporting, And the reason why I got to be a Doper was the many examples of Cecil debunking pseudoscience, that BTW gave me also another avenue to check if one’s meta cognition is up to good levels, because after so many years of debunking other pseudoscience, one can identify non partisan anti-pseudoscience groups that tell it like it is.
And it is really silly not to look at resources already available that report on what the scientists say, and compare it to what contarians and false skeptics are saying.
As I point out, what I think is not important, when there is science supporting a subject one has to go for the best information, not what an anonymous poster in a web forum claims, of course the point here is that this is the reason why I expect opponents to link to cites that support their say so’s, I rather deal with the yahoos that put those unoriginal or dumb ideas in the heads of misguided posters.
Simplistic sound bite: simplistic reason to continue posting on your part.
Thank you for answering.
Ok, lets walk through this with a hypothetical example:
Let’s pretend that analyzing the past showed a relationship between increase in CO2 and increase in average temp over some arbitrary time period as :
increase in ave temp=increase in CO2 ppm / 100
If this formula is used to predict future increases, then that formula is your model.
This is the critical point I think you have been missing so I’m going to repeat it: that formula from the past is your model.
Now, consider these two possibilities:
1 - Once CO2 ppm reaches 450 the rate of temperature increase shoots up 10x
2 - Once CO2 ppm reaches 450 the rate of temperature increase drops 10x
Either one of those things could happen, or something in between could happen, or something more or less complex could happen. The climate is an extremely complex system with positive and negative feedback, possibly chaotic, and it’s unclear to what level they can model it with simple formulas and it’s unclear to what level they can model it with computer simulations.
Does this post make sense? Is there any part you disagree with?
You brought the link.
You insisted we look into it.
I checked it.
It doesn’t say what you want.
You complain.
So, finally you’re saying that after agreein that Emanuel said
a) Fewer total storms
and
b) More Cat 3/4/5
you say it’s a simplsitic soundibte even when I quote the full answer that isn’t a soundbite.
A soundbite would’ve been “yup, more destructive hurricanes, death, horror!!eleven!!”.
He uses 189 words to give his answer, which, simplified for a general-public audicence, gives all the information very carefully.
189 words is not a soundbite. He specifically avoids the soundbite.
I’ll (almost) repeat: If Professor Kerry Emanuel of the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, named one of Time Magazine’s 100 Most Influential People in 2006 can be forced to give an unscientific answer or give a misleading soundbite by a no name interviewer pitching softballs at him, then it’d be ok to cast a doubt into any other statement he has.
This actually shows that you did not check the video linked already:
Effects of CO2 in the past and basic physics are the things that are telling scientists that the expected warming from a doubling of CO2 from the beginning of the industrial age, about 3 degrees centigrade.
Researchers do factor influences like the sun, CO2 content and others, when the scientists take the factors into consideration, they get a good correlation with the temperatures found from the past.
Remember, virtually all natural factors are already involved when the paleoclimate experts look for the proxy temperatures, the point that it is a complex system an a chaotic one is already a given, but at the end of the day temperature was recorded on the proxy paleorecords. Then scientists looked for what were the causes for the temperature changes. The trouble for the contrarians is to find alternative mechanisms that the scientists have not considered, as the video shows, the contrarians just contradict themselves and show that there is no one looking at the science.
That is what the reporter and Emmanuel agreed, it is simplistic. Too many words just to remark on it.
Once again, the consensus that is avoided: More energy and water vapor is increasing in the background thanks to global warming, not doing anything about our emissions is dumb.
As for other items already acknowledged before: it is really dumb to demand that I agree with them again. Of course this insistence only shows that I was right, the intention is not to look at the science but only to seek to discredit a bloke in a message board that has reported before that bit on less hurricanes as a likely result of the warming, one only can clarify also that there is no consensus on that as the models report mostly uncertainty.
Now, demanding that I agree once again with that is what is pathetic.
Who avoids the consensus?
Your link?
Your now-easily-dismissed expert?
The OP is about storms, let’s get to it, you can open another to talk about water vapour or forcings should you like it.
It’s not clear what you agree to because you’ve said, about the same link (your link)
a) It doens’t mean fewer or more
b) It means fewer
c) It’s a soundbite
(BTW, if it’s a soundbite, why did you proffer it?)
Every single post I make cannot specify every single position on the CC/AGW, so, yes, I didn’t talk about water vapour, forcings, aersols, Pinatubo, ENSO, MDPO or HadCRU, which you always take as a nefarious conspiracy.
Meh.
Based on your response, I don’t think you understood the point I was making in my last post, I probably did not word my post very well.
Would you be willing to paraphrase the point I was trying to make in my last post?
This might help me word it differently to get my point across, thanks.
You phrase this as a joke, but there is some validity to it. “I predict that there will be a massive stroke of thunder right now.” And…boom. There just happens to be. I was correct. But I had no justification for my claim. It was just a stab in the dark. Any system that assigns scientific validity to stabs in the dark which happen to come true has systemic flaws.
This is why repeatability is high on the list of scientific virtues. “Let me see you do that again.”
That’s a valid point (I thought that as I read his post also)…but you do have to start somewhere, agreed?
I was wondering if the “model” in climate science is something that can be shown. I’m obviously plumb ignorant on the subject, and have to pick sides “on form,” as the horse-racing guys say. If Scientific American says it, I’ll believe it. Sloppy, I know: appeal to authority. But sometimes, it’s all we’ve got.
But, anyway, if a climate model is a supercomputer run, can one really point to it and say, “Well, this. This is my model.” Unless I actually watch the run in progress, what will I see? If the prediction is based on such a run, isn’t it enough to say, “The model is a very complex supercomputer simulation.”
It would fill a book to expressly list all of the inputs, all of the variables, all the vectors, and, yes, all the assumptions. The model does exist, but it can’t be expressed in simple descriptive terms.
Only another computer modeling expert could criticize it, a priori. (“Say, you have a curl vector here where it ought to be a twist vector.”)
It’s a little like those complex election simulations we see every four years: there really is a model…but the reality on Wednesday morning is still always a surprise…