Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[cynic]

Oh! We're getting philosophical with "if a tree fell and no one hears it..."

Pretty sure Harvey and Irma was "biggest" by water volumes and not how many people it affected and whether the drainage weren't cleared etc.

How about we get past the headlines and examine some really basic facts.

At category 4, I am pretty certain that Harvey wasn't anywhere near the biggest of Atlantic hurricanes. More than 30 category 5's have been recorded this past century!

The "water volumes" argument appears to be nothing more than a creative attempt, to create lame justification, for claiming absence of historical precedence to this event.

And how can people honestly claim that these phenomena have been determined as unnaturally (as opposed to naturally) caused, when those same people aren't even clear on the actual facts!

 

[wayneL]

How about we get past the headlines and examine some really basic facts.

At category 4, I am pretty certain that Harvey wasn't anywhere near the biggest of Atlantic hurricanes. More than 30 category 5's have been recorded this past century!

The "water volumes" argument appears to be nothing more than a creative attempt, to create lame justification, for claiming absence of historical precedence to this event.

And how can people honestly claim that these phenomena have been determined as unnaturally (as opposed to naturally) caused, when those same people aren't even clear on the actual facts!

They are not interested in facts cynic, they are interested in creating alarm, knowing that 95% will never analyse the data.

Even when subsequently debunked, the new faux fact is in the public psyche, job done.

 

[luutzu]

How about we get past the headlines and examine some really basic facts.

At category 4, I am pretty certain that Harvey wasn't anywhere near the biggest of Atlantic hurricanes. More than 30 category 5's have been recorded this past century!

The "water volumes" argument appears to be nothing more than a creative attempt, to create lame justification, for claiming absence of historical precedence to this event.

And how can people honestly claim that these phenomena have been determined as unnaturally (as opposed to naturally) caused, when those same people aren't even clear on the actual facts!

Facts, says you.

I'm pretty sure Irma was Cat 5, then downgraded to Cat4 as it approaches Florida. And just read again, from Reuters, that Irma was the biggest to come out of the Atlantic.

It killed some 80 Americans? 8 elderly died due to no A/C in their nursing home, causing heat stroke and cardiac arrest or something right?

Lucky Irma didn't take out Florida's two nuclear power plants. Else it'd be another two Fukushimas.

Oh yea, they're only half way through their hurricane season and already the number of hurricanes are above the season's average. At least that's what the fake news from Reuters said.

 

[luutzu]

They are not interested in facts cynic, they are interested in creating alarm, knowing that 95% will never analyse the data.

Even when subsequently debunked, the new faux fact is in the public psyche, job done.

Yes, greenies commies lies and fake the stats. All so that people can live, or live in a safer and healthier environment. The bastards!

 

[notting]

Anyone who denies climate change, given what all valid scientific findings have been indicating for a long long time,(long before it was regular news) is an idiot.
How stupid to get sucked in by c@nts like this -

Exxon Mobil acknowledged in research and internal communications that climate change is real and caused by human activity, but it sowed doubt in its ads, a Harvard study found.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/23/exx...ic-on-climate-change-harvard-study-finds.html
Abbot
Howard
to name 2.

 

[cynic]

Facts, says you.

I'm pretty sure Irma was Cat 5, then downgraded to Cat4 as it approaches Florida. And just read again, from Reuters, that Irma was the biggest to come out of the Atlantic.

It killed some 80 Americans? 8 elderly died due to no A/C in their nursing home, causing heat stroke and cardiac arrest or something right?

Lucky Irma didn't take out Florida's two nuclear power plants. Else it'd be another two Fukushimas.

Oh yea, they're only half way through their hurricane season and already the number of hurricanes are above the season's average. At least that's what the fake news from Reuters said.

If you took the time to check some facts, you'd realise that Allen caused over three times as many deaths, and achieved greater wind speeds than Irma. It also achieved cat 5 status on more occasions than Irma.

But I already know, from your postings, that you are disinclined to investigate any facts that happen to conflict with your apocalyptic religion.

 

[Tisme]

Yes, greenies commies lies and fake the stats. All so that people can live, or live in a safer and healthier environment. The bastards!

It's not fair to simply imply the Greens Party is fatuous and fifth columnist, it's only the members and those who vote for them that fall into that category.

 

[luutzu]

It's not fair to simply imply the Greens Party is fatuous and fifth columnist, it's only the members and those who vote for them that fall into that category.

Yea that's too true.

 

[luutzu]

If you took the time to check some facts, you'd realise that Allen caused over three times as many deaths, and achieved greater wind speeds than Irma. It also achieved cat 5 status on more occasions than Irma.

But I already know, from your postings, that you are disinclined to investigate any facts that happen to conflict with your apocalyptic religion.

Soo... you did agreed that whereever catastrophic Climate Change "weather event" happen, it's apocalyptic to the people. Yet somehow CC is not apocalyptic... because? Because it's not apocalyptic to those in areas not affected? It doesn't occur all over the world all at once?

But let's get to the facts with Wikipedia....

Some 35 Cat5 hurricane tracing back to 1924.

Since 2003, there's been 11 Cat5.

hmmm... circle of life I guess. The climate as it has always been.

You can do some more maths with the figures in that wiki article... wind speed, duration...

Interesting stat is that in some 93 years, say 100... there's 35 Cat5. That's 100/35 = 2.86, or one every 3 years?

In the last 14 years there's been 11.

And the forecasts from climate scientists is it will get worst... but according to you and friends, it'll average out about the same as the previous 100 years... so yah...

 

[cynic]

Soo... you did agreed that whereever catastrophic Climate Change "weather event" happen, it's apocalyptic to the people. Yet somehow CC is not apocalyptic... because? Because it's not apocalyptic to those in areas not affected? It doesn't occur all over the world all at once?

But let's get to the facts with Wikipedia....

Some 35 Cat5 hurricane tracing back to 1924.

Since 2003, there's been 11 Cat5.

hmmm... circle of life I guess. The climate as it has always been.

You can do some more maths with the figures in that wiki article... wind speed, duration...

Interesting stat is that in some 93 years, say 100... there's 35 Cat5. That's 100/35 = 2.86, or one every 3 years?

In the last 14 years there's been 11.

And the forecasts from climate scientists is it will get worst... but according to you and friends, it'll average out about the same as the previous 100 years... so yah...

No matter how much you statisticise, the unnatural causation, you so hastily claim, remains unproven!
According to my reading of wiki, (which happens to be notorious for inaccuracy in its reporting of facts, but I'll play along for now), there were 32 cat 5's in a 94 year period (i.e. 1924 to present year) occurring an average of once every 3 years (approximately). 10 of these occurred inside a 14 year span, but in reality these represent all Atlantic cat 5s for the past 18-19 years!
Now if you take the time to look back at the 1930s, you will surely notice a 7 year period where 6 cat 5's were reported to have occurred! Of course that was followed by a 14 year period where there were none whatsoever! In effect, nothing about this 94 year period suggests, to me, that any confident conclusions can be meaningfully drawn from comparing 14 year (or less) samplings to a 94 year mean! The sample size is way too small for such a sporadic distribution!! And far more than 94 years history will be required!!!

So Mr. statistical genius, did you even bother to do any standard deviation calculations on this data to see where that 11 year period resides within the bell curve, and whether or not it can be considered statistically meaningful, before presuming it to be a natural aberration?

 

[cynic]

Soo... you did agreed that whereever catastrophic Climate Change "weather event" happen, it's apocalyptic to the people. Yet somehow CC is not apocalyptic... because? Because it's not apocalyptic to those in areas not affected? It doesn't occur all over the world all at once?
....

Please do me the courtesy of either quoting my actual words, in their full context, or not at all!

What you have done here, is totally misinterpreted, and subsequently misconstrued, what I was actually saying!!

If you genuinely misunderstood one of my earlier posts, at least do me the courtesy of quoting it when seeking clarification!
Entwining concurrence with your personal religion, into your faulty recollections of what I have actually posted is simply not on,
and
I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT STAND FOR ANY MORE OF IT FROM YOU!!!

I can currently envisage only three reasons that could explain your doing this! None of those reasons is complimentary to yourself! (My efforts to find a kinder interpretation are continuing, but have yet to produce a single result! Suffice to say you have really FTSEd me off big time on this one! - not cool!)

 

[Tisme]

Has anyone paused to think that whenever there is a catastrophic weather event there's always climate change advocates and greenies around at the time?

 

[SirRumpole]

Has anyone paused to think that whenever there is a catastrophic weather event there's always climate change advocates and greenies around at the time?

That's true, and when temperature records are broken year after year there are always people who just turn the air con up a bit and say it's always been like this.

 

[luutzu]

No matter how much you statisticise, the unnatural causation, you so hastily claim, remains unproven!
According to my reading of wiki, (which happens to be notorious for inaccuracy in its reporting of facts, but I'll play along for now), there were 32 cat 5's in a 94 year period (i.e. 1924 to present year) occurring an average of once every 3 years (approximately). 10 of these occurred inside a 14 year span, but in reality these represent all Atlantic cat 5s for the past 18-19 years!
Now if you take the time to look back at the 1930s, you will surely notice a 7 year period where 6 cat 5's were reported to have occurred! Of course that was followed by a 14 year period where there were none whatsoever! In effect, nothing about this 94 year period suggests, to me, that any confident conclusions can be meaningfully drawn from comparing 14 year (or less) samplings to a 94 year mean! The sample size is way too small for such a sporadic distribution!! And far more than 94 years history will be required!!!

So Mr. statistical genius, did you even bother to do any standard deviation calculations on this data to see where that 11 year period resides within the bell curve, and whether or not it can be considered statistically meaningful, before presuming it to be a natural aberration?

A lot of things doesn't make sense, to you.

The maths is simple... 35 Cat5 over a 94 year period; 11 of those occurred in the last 14 years.

Houston, we have no problem. Need more data.

Ah man, if you're annoyed at my interpretation of what you admitted, imagine how those climate scientists feel hearing Climate Change denial.

 

[wayneL]

You'd better have a word to Leo et al then luutzu.

 

[newanimal]

It's my understanding that CC is real, but not man made for the most part. It's a cyclical thing affecting the whole solar system in relation to it's crossing in and out of the galactic plane in a sine wave manner and is subject to more intense cosmic radiation as it does so. Happens every 26K years or so. IOW, every planet in the solar system is being affected including the sun. PTB (powers that be) know this but take advantage of public ignorance or unawareness to propose things like "carbon tax" and advance other agendas.

 

[SirRumpole]

It's my understanding that CC is real, but not man made for the most part. It's a cyclical thing affecting the whole solar system in relation to it's crossing in and out of the galactic plane in a sine wave manner and is subject to more intense cosmic radiation as it does so. Happens every 26K years or so. IOW, every planet in the solar system is being affected including the sun. PTB (powers that be) know this but take advantage of public ignorance or unawareness to propose things like "carbon tax" and advance other agendas.

Subsequent studies have cast doubt on that theory.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2009/jun/25/galactic-link-to-climate-change-in-doubt

https://www.universetoday.com/33538...tied-to-earth-passing-through-galactic-plane/

 

[wayneL]

Subsequent studies have cast doubt on that theory.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2009/jun/25/galactic-link-to-climate-change-in-doubt

https://www.universetoday.com/33538...tied-to-earth-passing-through-galactic-plane/

The thing is Horace, there is doubt about every theory/hypothesis.

 

[SirRumpole]

The thing is Horace, there is doubt about every theory/hypothesis.

Which is fine, when the doubt is based on scientific evidence.

 

[cynic]

A lot of things doesn't make sense, to you.

The maths is simple... 35 Cat5 over a 94 year period; 11 of those occurred in the last 14 years.

Houston, we have no problem. Need more data.

Ah man, if you're annoyed at my interpretation of what you admitted, imagine how those climate scientists feel hearing Climate Change denial.

I am annoyed by your continued efforts at misrepresentation of the things I actually post! If you want to claim that I admitted to something then quote my actual comment, in its full context, or SHUT THE FTSE UP!

And please stop throwing in extra cat 5s. (Your personal flatulence, no matter how odious the stench, doesn't count on the hurricane wind scales!)
Even if you include the latecomer to this party, Maria, it only makes 33 and not the 35 cat 5's that you keep claiming!

And yes, any idiot with an education in statistical analysis, should be able to understand why a great deal more than 94 years of data, is required to draw reliable conclusions about, that 14 (which should rightly be 15, not 14) year period, when interpreting the significance of events that have a mean occurence of approximately 1/3.

Since you are opting for the use of statistical analysis, rather than continuing to insult my intelligence with your part baked effort at conning the mathematically illiterate, how about you take the time to see that analysis through to a basic level of completion, at the very least?

You claim the "maths is simple" and yet you haven't even taken the time to calculate the standard deviations, so that it can then be shown where that recent 14 year (actually better make that 15 years) truly sits, within the bell curve, for that 94 years of data.

So are you willing to finish the job and see what that (insufficiently) small data population is truly suggesting?

Or are the standard deviation calculations beyond your simple mathematical comprehension?

Or, could it be, that you have already calculated the answer, and decided that you'd rather not show the results due to your discomfort in accepting the truth?