Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[jet_noise]

kerplunk said:

The paper is about weather in the "mid-latitudes" - not the tropics and so not about hurricanes and typhoons.

You just keep saying 'storms'. You're replying to a discussion about *tropical* storms. Storms in the mid-latitudes are extra-tropical storms - different beasties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extratropical_cyclon...

I do indeed say storms. Both storms and hurricanes are graphed by Chester35. What you're suggesting is that these titles should be prefaced by a location e.g. tropical or extra tropical and in this case the former. They weren't hence my conflation.

While then that example hypothesis as to why more (tropical storms and hurricanes) are not observed may be incorrectly applied, the data remains to contradict that global warming causes them to increase.
The warming= more storms hypothesis must be wrong. Evidence does not lie. /Grissom

Or as Feyman put it (my expansions in brackets from earlier paragraphs of his presentations):
"If it (the theory) disagrees with experiment (or experience), it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is … If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it."

[Toltec]

Kawasicki said:

Gadgetmac said:

Some even predicted with frightening accuracy what the consequences would be for sea level rises and severe weather events, among other things.

Have you had any technical training? Have you studied anything with a technical/scientific focus?

I didn't think of it in those personal terms, however definitely a case of selection bias.

[kerplunk]

jet_noise said:

kerplunk said:

The paper is about weather in the "mid-latitudes" - not the tropics and so not about hurricanes and typhoons.

You just keep saying 'storms'. You're replying to a discussion about *tropical* storms. Storms in the mid-latitudes are extra-tropical storms - different beasties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extratropical_cyclon...

I do indeed say storms. Both storms and hurricanes are graphed by Chester35. What you're suggesting is that these titles should be prefaced by a location e.g. tropical or extra tropical and in this case the former. They weren't hence my conflation.

A mouse-click on Chester5's link to the data would have told you it is tropical cyclone data. I think you weren't even aware that distinction matters until I raised it or it would have occurred to you to check

jet_noise said:

While then that example hypothesis as to why more (tropical storms and hurricanes) are not observed may be incorrectly applied, the data remains to contradict that global warming causes them to increase.
The warming= more storms hypothesis must be wrong. Evidence does not lie. /Grissom

Or as Feyman put it (my expansions in brackets from earlier paragraphs of his presentations):
"If it (the theory) disagrees with experiment (or experience), it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is … If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it."

Oh gawd another pompous 'sceptic' lecturing about how science works.

If you read the analysis of the obs in Chester5's first link it uses words like 'premature to conclude' and 'observational uncertainties'.

Only a fake sceptic would conclude that equals falsification.

[Gadgetmac]

Russians find 5 new islands due to the Arctic ice melt.

https://news.sky.com/story/arctic-melting-glaciers...

[dickymint]

Gadgetmac said:

Russians find 5 new islands due to the Arctic ice melt.

https://news.sky.com/story/arctic-melting-glaciers...

Excellent news, Mother Nature at her best

[Kawasicki]

dickymint said:

Gadgetmac said:

Russians find 5 new islands due to the Arctic ice melt.

https://news.sky.com/story/arctic-melting-glaciers...

Excellent news, Mother Nature at her best

Shouldn't global warming be covering up old islands, not exposing new ones?

[LongQ]

The Russians are probably very keen to persuade the shipping industry that there is a long enough viable shipping period through the Artic for it to offer the potential for economically viable business on a regular basis.

Also, did I read somewhere that Putin has been on an anti Vodka campaign?

Longer expedition looking for something of interest finds a few small islands that previous expeditions failed to spot or bother about.

Looks like that grass (if that picture is in any way related to the story) and the regular set of Arctic wildlife have known about the places for a while.

[Gadgetmac]

LongQ said:

Looks like that grass (if that picture is in any way related to the story) and the regular set of Arctic wildlife have known about the places for a while.

You can tell how long the wildlife has known about the place from a photo ie “a while”

You deniers are sooooo funny.

[LongQ]

Gadgetmac said:

You deniers are sooooo funny.

If only one could suggest the same for "you believers".

Not that it matters at all.

[stew-STR160]

So, the islands range in size from pretty small, to around 11 football fields in area.

The video showing the bears and walrus seems to show a landscape of much larger area. It's as if the video is trying to show that the entire landscape is 'new'.

[Gadgetmac]

Yes, the Russians are lying and are in on the global conspiracy with Sky News.

[stew-STR160]

Gadgetmac said:

Yes, the Russians are lying and are in on the global conspiracy with Sky News.

There's the stupid...

[Gadgetmac]

stew-STR160 said:

Gadgetmac said:

Yes, the Russians are lying and are in on the global conspiracy with Sky News.

There's the stupid...

Yep, you’re absolutely right about that.

[stew-STR160]

Gadgetmac said:

stew-STR160 said:

Gadgetmac said:

Yes, the Russians are lying and are in on the global conspiracy with Sky News.

There's the stupid...

Yep, you’re absolutely right about that.

It's wonderful to see that you are aware of your failings.

[Gadgetmac]

stew-STR160 said:

Gadgetmac said:

stew-STR160 said:

Gadgetmac said:

Yes, the Russians are lying and are in on the global conspiracy with Sky News.

There's the stupid...

Yep, you’re absolutely right about that.

It's wonderful to see that you are aware of your failings.

...I’m certainly aware of yours.

[Gandahar]

The polar parts of this earth moving into summer and winter ... how are they doing sea ice extent wise?



Arctic from a very low summer rebounding upwards finally as expected and Antarctic getting near long term averages finally after 2-3 years of lower than average before 2-3 years higher than average.

Global sea ice still at a low in the last 40 years ......

Is it due to climate change and iare the polar regions a bellwether for that?

Edited by Gandahar on Saturday 26th October 23:34

[Gandahar]

jet_noise said:

Chester35 said:

< snipped observation that once again data does does not support any kind of catastrophe (or even change from the usual weather) >

Having said that I do believe that global warming will increase hurricane intensity, it has just not been shown yet. As per the findings of the above link.

Edited by Chester35 on Saturday 5th October 19:00

Why do you hold this belief when you have already spotted that the data you have just posted does not support it? (assuming there has been "global warming" over the span of that data

Probably just the physics on the long scale v stats on the short scale

[Kawasicki]

Great news! Scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology now believe that one third of the global warming over the past century is due to the Sun’s activity.

https://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/communication/climate...

Edited by Kawasicki on Tuesday 5th November 21:29

[Esceptico]

Kawasicki said:

Great news! Scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology now believe that one third of the global warming over the past century is due to the Sun’s activity.

https://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/communication/climate...

Edited by Kawasicki on Tuesday 5th November 21:29

Just to get this right: you don’t believe climate scientists except when you think it supports your position, then you believe them?

And to point out the obvious the report says that two thirds of warming was due to human influence.

[Kawasicki]

Esceptico said:

Kawasicki said:

Great news! Scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology now believe that one third of the global warming over the past century is due to the Sun’s activity.

https://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/communication/climate...

Edited by Kawasicki on Tuesday 5th November 21:29

Just to get this right: you don’t believe climate scientists except when you think it supports your position, then you believe them?

And to point out the obvious the report says that two thirds of warming was due to human influence.

That’s very funny coming from you. You don’t believe any scientist that doesn’t belong in the 97%.

Back on topic...Haven’t the IPCC recently stated that 100% is due to humans?

The Max Planck scientists believe it’s more like 67%.

The sun seems to be a very significant factor after all. Wow. Odd that. Of course you could have read that right here on PH NPE forums years ago. I wonder when they will figure out that cloud cover is also massively important. My dog knows it’s cooler in the shade.