I have no idea what the Deniers you read say, since I pay little attention to the PR on either side.
The hurricane season is upon us in the North Atlantic.
We had a doozy in 2012 with a large Cat 2 storm, Sandy (Cat 3 when it was down in Cuba). Perhaps more economically damaging because of where it struck, but still a record large storm for dimensions, in the NA.
2013, not so much.
2014, not so much.
2015 is upon us. What will happen?
Hurricanes (and weather, and climate) are difficult to predict.
If we have 8 really big storms this year, is that consistent w/ AGW because of the factors which go into hurricanes?
If we have 1 giant storm this year, is that consistent w/ AGW because of the factors which go into hurricanes?
If we have a quiescent season this year, is that consistent w/ AGW because of the factors which go into hurricanes?
If we have…well; fill in the permutations.
And if the answer to any of the above is, “Sure,” then it’s an over-reach to trumpet AGW as the putative cause for any storm. We need to wait 10-20 years or so and look back, b/c we are very lousy at predicting.
Surely one of the finest wiggle-ease PR you can manufacture is “There may be fewer storms, but larger.” That way, every Galveston (which we know happen periodically) becomes a harbinger; every regular bad storm season is still consistent, and every quiescent season is still consistent.
Bases covered! But no actual useful prediction of any kind, and no practical advice except not to live near the coast (which we could have learned at Galveston).
Well, are there going to be fewer storms, or not? Are the storms going to be larger, or not? How large? How few?
We need a one-armed Alarmist if I’m to be dissuaded that it’s PR.
Full stop then, because you are acknowledging that you were and are only running on an argument from ignorance.
Compounded with what it is obvious: you are indeed falling for the PR of the deniers that also are lying about the consensus and denier sources also work to make it look as if scientists are overreaching, many luke warmers are falling for a false equivalency too.
The best example of what I’m talking about is the loss of cap ice, for years the IPCC and the consensus was that there was going to be about a meter of a rise of the ocean levels, but there was a big warning then, that problem was going to get worse if an acceleration of the ice loss was eventually found and while many did predict it, it was only put on the previous reports as possible and basically the rise in levels of that acceleration would cause was not added to the previous predicted increases.
Well, unfortunately evidence for that accelerated loss of cap ice was found, not only by satellites but also by nature photographers.
At the same time and even today the denier PR out there told us that that would not happen, and it continues to lie by deceptively telling us day in and day out that the “sea ice is recovering”, wilfully and misleadingly ignoring that sea ice is not the problem but the melting of cap ice over land.
I may be upset that one issue that was very probable was punted or talked about as possible for so long by the scientists, but that is what science should do in issues that while they are likely they rather tell us more affirmatively once direct observation is available.
And that takes to the hurricanes and tornadoes, as Richard Alley explained (and it is clear you refused to read or watch about what he is saying about capo ice) we still do not know with a lot of certainty what a warming world by our greenhouse gases will do to the number of hurricanes, we do know that with all that energy an water vapor added to the atmosphere thanks to the warming that all that will go somewhere once a hurricane comes by.
And that is basically it so far for the hurricanes, I have seen analysis that essentially say that (if you put a gun to their heads) that it is more likely that the numbers would increase also after a period were the weather patters would also conspire to limit then in the north Atlantic. Now, just like in the case of cap ice the scientists are indeed being cautious, but as they did tell you, the increase in their power should one reason for us to do something about our emissions. Unfortunately it is clear that the pinfully obvious to others has to be noted: The fact that the scientists are uncertain about one risk (the number of hurricanes coming thanks to warming) does not eliminate all the other much more likely problems that are bound to get worse like the increases in droughts, floods and sea level rise.
And regardless of all our silly arguments from ignorance about one aspect of the issue the reality is that already we have solid evidence of a tipping point that is unfolding with the accelerated loss of cap ice, it means that in a few decades coastal cities will have to spend a lot in protecting their coastlines or having to share a lot in the burden to rebuild on higher ground. Once again, the denier media out there told us that that acceleration was not going to happen. And the Republican politicians specially are swallowing that PR and denying all the problems and refusing to look at solutions.
Relying on gross ignorance about what the PR of what the actual scientists did actually tell us is really silly. And the denier’s PR has indeed done a good job in convincing guys like you also about “both” sides overreaching, it is indeed just a very old tactic that is part of old fashion propaganda efforts about “teaching the controversy” and appeals to equal time, that are as invalid as the ones that creationists are doing by insisting that all is in doubt about evolution or that scientists do not have a clue.
This time I pressed send before I edited more, correcting this line now:
And that is basically it so far for the hurricanes, I have seen analysis that essentially say that (if you put a gun to the heads of the scientists) it is more likely that the numbers of the hurricanes would increase also after a period were the weather patters would also conspire to limit them in the north Atlantic.
Now, just like in the case of cap ice the scientists are indeed being cautious, but as they did tell you, the increase in the power of the hurricanes should be one reason for us to do something about our emissions. Unfortunately, it is clear that the painfully obvious to others has to be noted: The fact that the scientists are uncertain about one risk (the number of hurricanes coming thanks to warming) does not eliminate all the other much more likely problems that are bound to get worse like the increases in droughts, floods and sea level rise.
Ok; I’ll stop.
But just a reminder that I acknowledge the PR on the part of Deniers. Gobs of it.
If you don’t think Alarmists indulge themselves in PR and marketing land grabs when a weather event occurs, I doubt I’ll be able to persuade you.
As a disinterested observer, it appears to me as if the parishioners in the Church of the Alarmist are overgenerous with their “Amens” and “Preach it Brother” when their ministers strike points.
Since I can’t drum up much enthusiasm for the topic personally, I’ll stop heckling you and return to chuckling from the sidelines at how easily we alarm ourselves when a Great Cause is at hand, despite having a near 100% failure rate for long-term predictions.
And you only show that you do not pay attention, the alarmism you usually point at come from the mainstream media, and is even created by the deniers themselves by misinterpreting and twisting what the science is or it is invented by the deniers in an attempt to make scientists and proponents of change to look silly.
Speaking of the hurricanes again, what I found in previous discussions was that indeed the mantra of the deniers out there is to claim that the scientists are telling us that their number will increase, a straw man that has become popular to toss by pointing at the lower number of hurricanes hitting the USA recently, but it is still not what the scientists are reporting nowadays, with more research this may change.
Disinterested observers will have to notice that this is just bullshit. It is not just a boiler plate denier point, but also a favorite of pseudo scientists and woo woo proponents.
[QUOTE]
[Storm:]"You're so sure of your position
But you're just closed-minded
I think you'll find
Your faith in Science and Tests
Is just as blind
As the faith of any fundamentalist"
[Tim:]“Hm that’s a good point, let me think for a bit
Oh wait, my mistake, it’s absolute bullshit.
Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.”
[/QUOTE]
You do that, everyone else just will have to notice that indeed your best attempts at finding examples of those failed predictions from those “alarmists” are also coming from exaggerated and misleading talking points from the deniers groups out there, lying about what the scientists are actually reporting.
I’m motivated to make a few comments on what I perceive to be a conversation going rapidly downhill because it’s degenerating to the usual non-substantive broad generalities. But still, I think some of these clarifications are important …
Just exactly how do you define “having a very good idea” about consequences? A lot of regional and microclimate effects are not reliably predictable. Particular year-to-year temperature trends aren’t, either. But the general climate trends are, because climate is the result of energy balance changes that can be projected from emissions scenarios, and over the long term isn’t chaotic the way weather is. The negative impacts of major disruptive influences on both climate systems and biosystems are well documented in the paleoclimate record.
It’s really very much like when I was driving my car to my faithful mechanic last week because it was overheating. I couldn’t predict – no one really could predict – exactly what would happen if I kept driving it that way indefinitely, but any reasonable person could suggest a whole series of very bad consequences that were bound to occur sooner or later. We know that this is the case with climate forcing not because (unlike an engine) the climate must forever maintain a certain average temperature, but rather because it’s clear that extremely rapid forcings are critically destabilizing to physical and biological systems in our environment. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is already more than 40% higher than it has ever been since the species homo sapiens has existed on earth. The climate is relentlessly catching up, just as it did during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.
The insidious subtext there is the false implication that chaotic systems must respond to inputs in a predictable fashion, which is a contradiction. They only respond statistically. There’s no question that higher SSTs are conducive to hurricane formation and power. There are also countervailing factors, but the increase in hurricane PDIs since the 80s correlates well with theory. So do many other extreme weather events. Others, like tornadoes, do not.
That’s a ridiculously loaded question which carries false equivalency like a great big banner. It’s exactly like asking “there was, or there wasn’t, a prediction that sea ice would decrease in the Arctic but I would have more snow to shovel in my driveway?” The two things are in no way even comparable, let alone equivalent. Antarctic sea ice is a seasonal phenomenon unrelated to the multi-year Antarctic ice, or in any way to Arctic sea ice, for the reasons I’ve already explained. Denialists love it, though, because the words sound terrific.
As with the “snow in my driveway” analogy, no. Antarctic sea ice is completely orthogonal to “climate change theory” in that, broadly speaking, global climate change theory doesn’t give a shit about it one way or the other. First look at basic causation, and then look at numbers – magnitudes, distributions, and trends. Antarctic sea ice is about as significant to global warming as the snow in my back yard. It’s called “facts”, as opposed to “words that sort of sound like they’re the same thing as something else that’s actually important”.
What is the PR force behind this? Or this? Or this? And what, exactly, are the overstatements they’ve been guilty of? You made a claim. Back it up with a credible site or two or three.
