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

[FXMastermind]

@GIGObuster

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,

No, and that is just more nonsense. Anyone who makes pseudo-scientific claims is, by definition, promoting pseudo-scientific nonsense. It doesn’t even take an expert to see that if the claim is straight up and clear, and the data supports the claim, (or rather, the data actually makes the case), then anyone arguing against the data is not being scientific, or even rational about it.

 When speaking about trends in hurricanes, and pointing out that Al Gore was full of it, and the predictions about monster storms and bigger hurricanes becoming the "new normal" turned out to be wrong, then pointing at the data for the time period under discussion is quite scientific.  It would be in fact, the very thing to look at.  If "global warming" was to cause stronger, more intense, more numerous hurricanes, or any other claim, then looking at the temperature data is simply a rational and scientific thing to do.

 If the data showed the same rate of warming as was measured in the years leading up to the predictions about monster storms, then it is reasonable to say warming didn't lead to worse hurricanes.  (or tornadoes, as the link in the OP discusses)

 But if the global average temperature actually went down (speaking of a trend, certainly some years were very warm), then it's a different story.  Asking why global warming didn't lead to an increase in storms, when there wasn't warming, that is another question.  If the trend was down (and it is, since 2002), or flat (it is, since 1998), or statistically flat (it is since 1995), then the answer to "what happened/" might be, the warming stalled.  That's why storms didn't increase.  or some other answer.

 It's exactly why I brought up the recent trend, in regards to the topic.  Over the long term, the trend is warming, even if we see an 11 year slight decrease, the long term trend is still warming.  But in regards to storms, you have to actually consider the climate (or global temp average), as well as the SSTs, for the years in question.  Of course it's far more complicated than the simplistic nonsense some people try to pass off as science.  "More heat = worse storms" isn't even close to science.  Nor is "more heat=more moisture=bigger hurricanes",  That shows a remarkable lack of understanding, and it's quite right to point this out.

[FXMastermind]

@Trinopus

You phrase this as a joke, but there is some validity to it. "

I’m glad you got the humor of it. Even when something is hilarious, it can have truth in it.

@Trinopus

Any system that assigns scientific validity to stabs in the dark which happen to come true has systemic flaws.

I don’t know of any “system” that does that. In fact, a mechanism to explain a theory, or action, or prediction is usually a requirement before anyone will even consider your idea.

@Trinopus

This is why repeatability is high on the list of scientific virtues. “Let me see you do that again.”

 For one time events, or rare natural events, that isn't even an issue.  For predicting weather, or climate change, or even the global average temperature, it's quite reasonable to expect predictions to actually predict, or people will start considering your ideas flawed.  While this may seem unreasonable to the climate expert who used a very expensive model to predict something, it's just how things are.

 At some point observation of the natural world is going to trump a prediction.  No matter how much money was spent, or how important the expert is.

[GIGObuster]

All those lines from FXMastermind just to never tell us who is supporting him, sorry, even people who for a living look to debunk pseudoscience report that the idea of looking for only the last years of the record and call it a day is dishonest.

The fact that he can not find support for what he claims shows who is not looking at the science or just cherry picking.

[GIGObuster]

And once again, it is not hard to figure out that skeptics that look at pseudoscience do consult and look at the science to report that the cherry pick is still a dishonest point to make.

http://www.skepticblog.org/2012/04/11/cherry-picked-data-and-deliberate-distortions/

As you can see from the plot, the warming trend since 1989 shows up clearly, as does the anomalous spike in 1998. Yet the AGW denier cherry-pickers start with the anomalously warm 1998 data then try to make the case that the next few years are cooler, hence, “no global warming”. However, this falls apart in 2002 and 2003, which were as warm as 1998 (without El Niño events), and 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010 were as warm as 1998 or even warmer still. As the quote above pointed out, as of 2009, 11 of the warmest years on record had occurred in since 1986, and adding 2009 and 2010, that makes 13 of the warmest years on record in the past 15 years. All of the sixteen hottest years ever recorded on a global scale have occurred in the last 20 years. They are (in order of hottest first): 2010, 2009, 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2001, 1997, 2008, 1995, 1999, 1990, and 2000. In other words, every year since 2000 has been in the Top Ten hottest years list, and the rest of the list includes 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000. Only 1996 failed to make the list (because of the short-term cooling). So the claim that “it hasn’t warmed since 1998″ has been false since 2002. This statement is even more pernicious because it deliberately and dishonestly ignores these many record-breaking years since 2004.

Cherry-picking can be played both ways. If I pick any year prior to 1998-2000 and connect with any data point from 2001 onwards, I get a warming trend. In fact, the only way a AGW denier could get their “no warming since 1998″ misrepresentation is to deliberately and consciously look at the curve, pick 1998 to start, and only compare it to 1999-2001. Any other long-term combination of the data shows warming. Thus, this distortion of the data that Will keeps repeating is not just a simple misreading of the facts. Since the meme is quoted from 2009, this means that the deniers were consciously and fraudulently trying to distort the data to suit their purposes. The fact that this lie keeps being perpetuated despite the fact that scientists have offered numerous corrections shows the AGW deniers have the same casual disregard for the truth that creationists do. Such practices demonstrate the absymal level of their scientific integrity, and speaks to the fact that AGW deniers are not climate scientists, but people with political agendas who cherry-pick data, quote-mine out of context, and use whatever lies and half-truths they need to support their cause. The parallel with creationists and other science deniers could not be any clearer.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

So if there was a flat/cooling trend since BEFORE the 1998 Niño it’d be valid and not cherry pickin’?