The problem for NOAA is that these advisories, watches and warnings all have strict scientific definitions. From GIGO’s quote above “[Continuing the hurricane warning a day of two longer] would have been a lie, he said, and “would have utterly destroyed the credibility of the agency in the long run.”” Plus the “Hurricane Warning” was replaced by a “Hurricane-Force Wind Warning”, so the point’s moot if no one is paying attention.
Part of the problem was the name was too cutsie … “Sandy” … kind of get the imagery of a cute lil’ elfin lass prancing in mud-puddles wearing a My Little Ponies rain jacket.
I didn’t ask if they’d be better at it than me. I asked " Does this mean climatologists are in the business of making local weather forecasts?" Climatology is not meteorology, and the argument that runs “if they can’t predict the weather two weeks in advance, why should we believe them about long-term climate trends?” is a silly one. It shows the person making it doesn’t have a good enough grasp of the subject to have an informed opinion. I can’t believe anyone capable of using a computer doesn’t understand this.
It’s a weak attempt to cast aspersions on climatologists by implying they’re incompetent because their findings contradict right-wing dogma. It’s up there with Inhofe claiming science can’t be right because there’s snow in the winter.
Perhaps if you clarified what you mean by “Climatology is not meteorology” then your statements would make better sense. That really is a tough question to answer even for those with some grasp of the material, or the answer would abound. You’ll have to agree that the extreme climate forecasts do need explanation.
The IPCC has some items wrong but the issue was that the IPCC was very conservative and underestimated some items, the problem for the contrarians is that it means that the situation is worse.
Independent studies using different software, different methods, and different data sets yield very similar results. The increase in temperatures since 1975 is a consistent feature of all reconstructions. This increase cannot be explained as an artifact of the adjustment process, the decrease in station numbers, or other non-climatological factors. Natural temperature measurements also confirm the general accuracy of the instrumental temperature record.
Given that when it’s fall (and cooling off) in the Northern Hemisphere, it’s spring (and warming up) in the Southern Hemisphere, I can confidently answer your statement with: no, it actually doesn’t.
As already pointed out to you by others, that’s a ridiculously incorrect argument that reflects a basic confusion about the difference between weather and climate. I can reliably predict that it will be colder in December than it is now because of knowledge of the underlying climatological factors. The forcings of greenhouse gases are well quantified long term climatological factors and can’t be wished away by conservatives.
You must have missed my cites in post #5 on the increasing frequency of extreme weather events.
The IPCC is not really in the business of predictions – what they primarily do is project the climate impacts of different emissions scenarios, now more accurately referred to as representative concentration pathways, or RCPs.
But to the extent that they have made temperature projections, your statement is false. There are certainly factions out there who deliberately misrepresent the IPCC, as that idiot Lord Monckton has done over at WUWT – Monckton being a brainless dilettante and zealous denialist who is proof that at least some inbred elements of the English aristocracy should be kept out of public view.
The facts are that the IPCC AR4 in 2007 stated:
Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections. https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
In the current AR5 this remains essentially unchanged: for instance, the median of the RCP 4.5 scenario is projected at +1.0°C by 2050 relative to 2000, or 0.2°C per decade (see Fig. 11.9 in Chapter 11 of the AR5 WG1, Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability.
Finally, why are we having this discussion? Is it to demonstrate that AGW isn’t happening? Is it to demonstrate that you don’t understand climate science? Both of those are getting old.
Yeah, and those statisticians who can’t even correctly predict a single roll of dice, what chance do they have of even coming close to estimating the average of 1,000 rolls?
Who the heck thought he meant Jamaica, Queens? :rolleyes:
Are you intending to set an example?
Whether Sandy was “Cat 1” or whatever when it landed in NY is essentially a pedantic argument. Those categorizations are arbitrary. It was unquestionably a devastating storm when it hit, among the worst ever, both when hitting NY and NJ and earlier when it was technically hurricane strength.
The point was that it was indeed a hurricane that made landfall, what I do detect here is that it looks like if to counter that point we can then ignore what happens to other nations, after all it is not our problem, IMHO if a ten mile per hour difference is enough to claim that something is invalid, it is underwhelming. The main point was wind speed was not the only issue to consider in a warming world.
But this shows also that we are relying on being lucky, well fie to that. Of course it is good news that currently the winds and other factors with a help of the warming in the background are limiting the number of hurricanes in the north Atlantic, but more than a few researchers point out that this could be temporary, it is the already pointed at issue that even if one can find areas of the world where warming is beneficial the ugly fact is that the emissions are not under control and so conditions like this will change too.
I guess you did not notice that I remembered that from what the mainstream media told us then. But if that is your hang up I do not think that for my main point 10 miles of difference will be bad, so you can have your tropical storm and New jersey. I will have the hurricane that deniers implied that it never took place when it was measured as such.
As for credible my point has been always that one has to look at science.
So the ability to find someone talking stupid bullsh!t is supposed to be proof of something? :smack:
It would be extremely difficult to prove that any single incident can be attributed to AGW. Climate is statistical. When statistics of many events change significantly then that can be attributed to climate change not any single statistic.
How much energy does it take to raise a cubic mile of water by one degree Celsius?
If millions of cubic miles of water change by that much and are statistically different from the averages of the last century then something is going on.
Indeed, I did notice earlier that there is this meme going on that only presses on what the scientists do acknowledge: Yes, one can not blame an specific hurricane to global warming. But what many contrarians ignore is that at the same time scientists are telling us that water vapor increases the warmer it gets, and then there is all this energy being accumulated by the oceans.
Regardless if a hurricane or other extreme weather event in a humid region is caused by the changes or not, all that water vapor and energy has to go somewhere when a hurricane comes. And rising oceans is also a factor in making them more dangerous.
And it does not help to show all that you even deny that I granted your wish, you get your tropical storm and New Jersey, I get the scientists to show that the important point I made early does stand regarding the media and the intensity of the hurricanes and tropical storms.
