Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[luutzu]

What relevance does elevator flatulence have to the discussion at hand?

Do you seriously agree with the Sierra Club's contemptuous disregard for the satellite data that showed a recent period (approximately 19 years) of slight cooling?

On the topic of cat 5 hurricanes, 94 (not 100 !) years of historical data has been captured,and dependent upon how one slices the time intervals, those recent 30% could be considered to have occurred inside a larger than 15 year interval!

Despite the limitations imposed by a scant 94 years of historical data, over which the cat 5's are sporadically distributed, (and irrespective of whether the recently chosen interval is viewed as 15 or more years) it is still possible to produce a probability estimate of the likelihood that these were in line with what could be expected from natural causation. The estimate's reliability and meaningfulness, is however, limited by the sparsity of the available data.

So did you calculate an estimate of the probability of whether or not this was naturally caused?

If so:
(i) what was the percentage likelihood of that period occuring inside of 94 years history? and knowing this,
(ii) how can you seriously continue to claim that those cat 5's are evidence of CAGW?

It's 94 years since the first recorded one with the then new hurricane measure/definition scale. It's not 94 years of Cat5 man.

And yes, if 33% of something occurred in the last 14/94=15% of the entire span under discussion, it's not "normal".

You know how there are idiots who know a lot about maths but doesn't know how to think? I'm pretty sure you know a lot about that, just you might not realise it.

Yea mate, I'd take statistics from Cruz the same way I'd take a coolaid in Jonestown.


It's a fart, not flatulent. I guess you were sent to the right school... too bad Critical Thinking weren't part of the syllables.

If something concentrated is foul and bad for you, diluting it far and wide does not mean it no longer exist. It's still there, just spread out.

Then, if more and more of the substance are added day after day, years after years... the dilution become less diluted. When the build up is faster than the natural breakdown, nothing will happen because it's all the Sun's fault.

 

[cynic]

It's 94 years since the first recorded one with the then new hurricane measure/definition scale. It's not 94 years of Cat5 man.

Are you suggesting that no Atlantic cat 5's occurred prior to 1924?

And yes, if 33% of something occurred in the last 14/94=15% of the entire span under discussion, it's not "normal".

How did you arrive at such a conclusion without knowing the statistical probability?

From the available data, calculate the standard deviation, and then show me where that time interval is situated in respect to the bell curve!

Whilst doing so, also give due consideration to the bell curve positioning for the prior intervals, and then explain to me again, how it is that you justify defining this event, which is of limited statistical significance, as somehow not "normal"?

It is quite evident that you have neither comprehension, nor understanding of statistics, and analysis methods for same.

Now, based upon statistical analysis of the historical data, what is the probability (i.e. likelihood) that those cat 5's were of natural causation?

You know how there are idiots who know a lot about maths but doesn't know how to think? I'm pretty sure you know a lot about that, just you might not realise it.

Do you "know how there are idiots", whom, whilst idiotically ignorant of their own idiocy, somehow arrive at the idiotic conclusion that there idiocy resides elsewhere?
A mirror, would prove a sound investment, for you, at this juncture!

Yea mate, I'd take statistics from Cruz the same way I'd take a coolaid in Jonestown.

After reading your posts, I'll be more than happy to shout your first drink!

It's a fart, not flatulent. I guess you were sent to the right school... too bad Critical Thinking weren't part of the syllables.

It's syllabus not syllables!
Go back to FTSEing school and try and actually learn something this time!

If something concentrated is foul and bad for you, diluting it far and wide does not mean it no longer exist. It's still there, just spread out.

Your posts throughout these climate threads being a case in point.

Then, if more and more of the substance are added day after day, years after years... the dilution become less diluted. When the build up is faster than the natural breakdown, nothing will happen because it's all the Sun's fault.

Sounds like diluted thinking to me!

Wouldn't it be better for everyone present, if, instead of diluting their intellect with deluded apocalyptic fantasies, people actually concentrated?

 

[luutzu]

Are you suggesting that no Atlantic cat 5's occurred prior to 1924?

How did you arrive at such a conclusion without knowing the statistical probability?

From the available data, calculate the standard deviation, and then show me where that time interval is situated in respect to the bell curve!

Whilst doing so, also give due consideration to the bell curve positioning for the prior intervals, and then explain to me again, how it is that you justify defining this event, which is of limited statistical significance, as somehow not "normal"?

It is quite evident that you have neither comprehension, nor understanding of statistics, and analysis methods for same.

Now, based upon statistical analysis of the historical data, what is the probability (i.e. likelihood) that those cat 5's were of natural causation?

Do you "know how there are idiots", whom, whilst idiotically ignorant of their own idiocy, somehow arrive at the idiotic conclusion that there idiocy resides elsewhere?
A mirror, would prove a sound investment, for you, at this juncture!

After reading your posts, I'll be more than happy to shout your first drink!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffir%E2%80%93Simpson_scale

Turns out the scale was established in 1971. Retrospectively define historical Cat5 hurricanes where there are available data.

I guess there were no instrument to measure wind speed before 1924, that and a sucked finger in the wind just won't do.

So yea, there were Cat5 hurricane/typhoon/cyclones in and around the tropics.

We're interested in the frequency of those here. Not weather or not [], not whether or not there's been any before.

Sooo... some 35 Cat5 over a 100 year span; 11 of those in the past 14 or so years.

The average is 1 every 3 years; the past 14 shows almost 1 every year.

I guess we need a few more lifetimes to see if there's a trend. I mean, what's a few million lives lost here and there... we need the stats, dam it!

I guess those Climate Scientists studying them ice core drills dating back millions of years... meehhh. What does that tell them about carbon, ice age, polar ice cap.

It's syllabus not syllables!
Go back to FTSEing school and try and actually learn something this time!

That was killing two birds with one stone.

If should frame that joke. It's one of my best work.

Your posts throughout these climate threads being a case in point.

Sounds like diluted thinking to me!

Wouldn't it be better for everyone present, if, instead of diluting their intellect with deluded apocalyptic fantasies, people actually concentrated?

Puerto Rico. The new Katrina where poor and coloured American citizens get to have the freedom to die slowly as "a great job" is being put together to help them out of the storm.

But of course debt have to be repaid first. That and whether or not they sang the proper respect to the national anthem. Priorities my friend. Preponderance of the fact a to weather the poor die first or not.

 

[cynic]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffir%E2%80%93Simpson_scale

Turns out the scale was established in 1971. Retrospectively define historical Cat5 hurricanes where there are available data.

I guess there were no instrument to measure wind speed before 1924, that and a sucked finger in the wind just won't do.

So yea, there were Cat5 hurricane/typhoon/cyclones in and around the tropics.

We're interested in the frequency of those here. Not weather or not [], not whether or not there's been any before.

Sooo... some 35 Cat5 over a 100 year span; 11 of those in the past 14 or so years.

The average is 1 every 3 years; the past 14 shows almost 1 every year.
...

Earlier in the 94 year record span, there was a 14 year interval with none whatsoever!
What do you make of that?

How far from the mean (in standard deviations)?

In statistical terms, what does that suggest the probability to be?

How does this compare to the probability of 11 (i.e. instead of none)?

In light of the answers to the aforementioned questions, tell me again how you determined that these cat 5's were not "normal"?

 

[luutzu]

Earlier in the 94 year record span, there was a 14 year interval with none whatsoever!
What do you make of that?

How far from the mean (in standard deviations)?

In statistical terms, what does that suggest the probability to be?

How does this compare to the probability of 11 (i.e. instead of none)?

In light of the answers to the aforementioned questions, tell me again how you determined that these cat 5's were not "normal"?

ermmm... the Cold War cooled the planet during those years? It's been hotter past decade or two because Al Qaeda and ISIS prayed to their Allah since the 90s?

See why there are things people should leave to 97% of the experts to tell them?

and dude, when the average is 1 per 3 years over the century... or let's remove the past 14 years and its Cat5... that's (94-14 years)/(34-11) = 80/23 = 3.4years per Cat5.

So there were decades without any Cat5. On average about 1 every 3.4 years for the first 80 years... now it's about 1 per year.

Yah, that's normal man. Look, 3.4 = 1.

 

[cynic]

ermmm... the Cold War cooled the planet during those years? It's been hotter past decade or two because Al Qaeda and ISIS prayed to their Allah since the 90s?

See why there are things people should leave to 97% of the experts to tell them?

and dude, when the average is 1 per 3 years over the century... or let's remove the past 14 years and its Cat5... that's (94-14 years)/(34-11) = 80/23 = 3.4years per Cat5.

So there were decades without any Cat5. On average about 1 every 3.4 years for the first 80 years... now it's about 1 per year.

Yah, that's normal man. Look, 3.4 = 1.

Says the man whom clearly doesn't understand the criticial importance of considering standard deviations, whilst observing variances from the mean.

I shall try to put it in simpler terms for you:
How many 14 year periods can you see in that data where exactly 4 cat 5's occurred?
How many 28 year periods where 8 occurred?
How many 42 year periods where 12 occurred?

Considering the answers to those questions, can you now understand why your approach to this analysis is faulty?

Can you also understand how consideration of the standard deviation can aid in estimating the probability of such variatiances from mean?

So instead of persisting with your repetitious demonstrations of your statistical misconceptions, why not answer the FTSEing questions I have repeatedly posted!

Then we'll be able to have a meaningful discussion about why, the limited data available, actually suggests that these events are more than likely to have been naturally caused.

 

[luutzu]

Says the man whom clearly doesn't understand the criticial importance of considering standard deviations, whilst observing variances from the mean.

I shall try to put it in simpler terms for you:
How many 14 year periods can you see in that data where exactly 4 cat 5's occurred?
How many 28 year periods where 8 occurred?
How many 42 year periods where 12 occurred?

Considering the answers to those questions, can you now understand why your approach to this analysis is faulty?

Can you also understand how consideration of the standard deviation can aid in estimating the probability of such variatiances from mean?

So instead of persisting with your repetitious demonstrations of your statistical misconceptions, why not answer the FTSEing questions I have repeatedly posted!

Then we'll be able to have a meaningful discussion about why, the limited data available, actually suggests that these events are more than likely to have been naturally caused.

I never claimed to be a Mathsurgeon man; not a Statismethician either [neither?]

Of course these events are naturally caused. We humans just mined and pump and transport and refine the dam thing; burnt it up; convert it to energy; the waste and natural transformation floats into the atmosphere; block the sun's heat from escaping (naturally); the warmer ocean and air naturally, like magic, lifts the waters in the tropics and wooosh, mother nature washes and floods cities and buildings where people die naturally from being drowned or smash by flying debris or lack of food or drinking water or going broke because they've loss their job or not getting paid during the storm, the clean up; and not being paid enough that have their home repaired, their few possessions replaced.

That's how Mufasa tells it to Simba.

But that's the Disney version.

The Brothers Grimm version would go something like rich capitalist psychos with their fat fingers on the lever of power pulls a few strings, pay a few "scientist" and "journalist" to say it's all natural, the scientists are all wrong because they can't prove anything definitively.

 

[cynic]

I never claimed to be a Mathsurgeon man; not a Statismethician either [neither?]

Of course these events are naturally caused. We humans just mined and pump and transport and refine the dam thing; burnt it up; convert it to energy; the waste and natural transformation floats into the atmosphere; block the sun's heat from escaping (naturally); the warmer ocean and air naturally, like magic, lifts the waters in the tropics and wooosh, mother nature washes and floods cities and buildings where people die naturally from being drowned or smash by flying debris or lack of food or drinking water or going broke because they've loss their job or not getting paid during the storm, the clean up; and not being paid enough that have their home repaired, their few possessions replaced.

That's how Mufasa tells it to Simba.

But that's the Disney version.

The Brothers Grimm version would go something like rich capitalist psychos with their fat fingers on the lever of power pulls a few strings, pay a few "scientist" and "journalist" to say it's all natural, the scientists are all wrong because they can't prove anything definitively.

More like a Hans Christian Andersen fairytale:


I suggest that all climate alarmists, and cronies of same, pay close attention to that fairytale's educational content, as it has a high level of relevance to the climate issue! (I am not joking!)

 

[Knobby22]

The state record for the hottest day in September has been broken for the second time in a week in parts of western New South Wales.

In the upper west, Delta has hit 41.3 degrees Celsius and in Bourke it reached 40.7C.




Other towns which are also expected to reach 41C include Tibooburra, Bourke, Lightning Ridge, Walgett and Mungindi.

The latest record was only just set on Saturday when the town of Wilcannia reached 40.5C during an unseasonal heatwave.

Prior to that, the last record was set on September 28, 2004 with the temperature hit 39.6C at Wanaaring.

 

[Knobby22]

From the ABC

Something very interesting will happen when Bali's Mount Agung finally erupts: the Earth will become a little bit cooler.

Yep. It's not exactly what you'd expect after a volcanic eruption, which will see molten lava spewed into the air.

Mount Agung last erupted in 1963 after lying dormant for decades.

When it erupted, experts said global atmospheric temperatures dropped by 0.1-0.4 degrees Celsius.

According to Professor Arculus, that sulphuric acid haze can persist in the stratosphere for a few years, but eventually the droplets will drop back to Earth.

 

[basilio]

Did you know ?
260 heat and low rainfall records were broken in Australia during the our 2017 winter ?
Has Global Warming ceased ? Meanwhile Scott Morrison continues his special relationship with a lump of coal..

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the climate change debate

• 
  Judith Ireland
  

There is no shortage of things to talk – and worry – about this week.

A glance at trending social media topics suggests "Las Vegas", "Tom Petty", potential moves for AFL players Tom Rockliff and Jake Lever and "National Boyfriend Day" are on the brain. But oddly missing from the list of talking points is the terrifying research released on Wednesday.

More than 260 heat and low rainfall records were broken during the winter months, the Climate Council says. Photo: Andrew Taylor
According to a study led by the Australian National University, Sydney and Melbourne should prepare for 50-degree summer days in the coming decades. Researcher Sophie Lewis said these 50-degree scorchers could occur even under the Paris Agreement's global warming limit of 2 degrees.

The study, published in Geophysical Research Letters, adds "such unprecedented temperatures would present onerous challenges to human and natural systems".

Treasurer Scott Morrison with a lump of coal during question time. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen
With existing records for both cities currently hovering around 46 degrees, this is not simply a question of running out of space for your towel at Bondi. Or your air conditioner struggling to keep up.

Do our cities (and bodies) have the capacity to withstand this kind of heat? As Lewis told The Guardian, how would public transport systems cope during a 50-degree heatwave? How would hospitals handle the numbers of people overcome by heatstroke? How would we continue to power our cities?

"Urgent action on climate change is critical," the ANU academic said.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...he-climate-change-debate-20171003-gytukv.html

 

[explod]

So it looks like the weather is going to get very ugly, but who cares ?

What Will We Leave Our Children?
23 hrs ·
Simply terrifying. #ClimateEmergency

Arctic temperatures soar 25 degrees above normal in the dead of winter
Shipping can navigate easily through the Arctic Ocean as the ice melts in abnormally high temperatures for February.
SMH.COM.AU

 

[Smurf1976]

So it looks like the weather is going to get very ugly, but who cares ?

Nothing to worry about there.

It'll be easier to sail the coal carrying ships through without that pesky ice in the way.

Easier for the oil industry to drill up there now too.

Now pass along the lump (of coal) and get back to worrying about things which really matter. Things link who's having sex with who, what's on the national flag and which days should be public holidays. No need to waste time with silly things like melting ice caps and rising sea levels.

 

[wayneL]

Better scuttle your SUVs and decomission the aircon chaps.

 

[basilio]

The mechanics of how global warming is disrupting weather conditions around the world are concerning. Following on from Explods post there is an excellent analysis of the changes in pressure systems that are happening as the Artic rapidly warms at 4 times the rate of the rest of the world.

'Really extreme' global weather event leaves scientists aghast

• 
  Peter Hannam

Climate scientists are used to seeing the range of weather extremes stretched by global warming but few episodes appear as remarkable as this week's unusual heat over the Arctic.

Zack Labe, a researcher at the University of California at Irvine, said average daily temperatures above the northern latitude of 80 degrees have broken away from any previous recordings in the past 60 years.

"To have zero degrees at the North Pole in February - it's just wrong," said Amelie Meyer, a researcher of ice-ocean interactions with the Norwegian Polar Institute. "It's quite worrying."

The so-called Polar Vortex - a zone of persistient low-pressure that typically keeps high-latitude cold air separate from regions further south - has been weakening for decades.

In this instance, "a massive jet of warm air" is penetrating north, sending a cold burst southwards, said Dr Meyer, who has relocated to Hobart to research on the southern hemisphere, and is hosted by Australia's Integrated Marine Observing System.

"The anomalies are really extreme," Andrew King, a lecturer in climate science at the University of Melbourne, said. "It's a very interesting event."

Warm, moist air is penetrating much further north than it would normally at a time when the North Pole is in complete darkness.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/env...leaves-scientists-aghast-20180225-p4z1q4.html

 

[basilio]

"While climate change itself is only likely to have exacerbated regional weather variability, the long-term shrinkage of sea ice has a reinforcing effect on global warming in a region already warming faster than anywhere else on the planet, Dr King said.

Ice reflects sunlight back to space. When it melts, the sea ice exposes more of the dark ocean beneath, which then absorbs that solar radiation, adding to the warming.

Sea ice coverage is currently at or close to record low levels at both the Arctic and Antarctic regions.

The impact of the relatively warm air in the Arctic could play out for months to come. Multi-year ice is likely to be thinner and more cracked, leading to a faster melt when spring arrives, Dr Meyer said.

While researchers had pegged 2050 as a possible year when the Arctic will become ice-free, this winter and the previous one - also unusually warm - had thrown those estimates out.

"It's going much faster than we thought," said Dr Meyer, who will begin work later this year at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes."

Reference as above

 

[basilio]

And the reality of human caused climate change can be understood and accepted by anyone - including seemingly dyed- in-the-wool sckeptics. Come on down!

Look at the video below.

Video
The evolution of a one-time climate 'skeptic'

For two-plus decades the veritable bane of the existence of many climate scientists, a one-time Cato Institute official now endorses the science and advocates for action.

Climate change policy analyst* Jerry Taylor spent more than 25 years earning his well-deserved reputation as the skunk at the picnic of American climate scientists.

Taylor – the focus of this month’s “This is Not Cool” video – cut his teeth as an energy and environment savant with the very conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), where he worked from 1988 to 1991. Then, from 1991 to 2014, he was with the free-market Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., where he eventually became a vice president. Through many of those years, Taylor was a frequent spokesperson for those scientists who regularly challenged whether climate change is real, human-caused, or, in either event, worth worrying about or doing anything to address.

......
Jerry Taylor: Version #1 vs. Version #2
But that was Jerry Taylor, Version #1. That is the Jerry Taylor who from 2000 through 2009 was spending lots of his free time designing wargames for computer gaming enthusiasts.

Then came Jerry Taylor, Version #2. That’s the Jerry Taylor who – after doing what he describes as his own “due diligence” – has come to fully accept and endorse the peer-reviewed scientific evidence on human-caused climate change that Earth’s atmosphere has warmed over the past half-century-plus primarily as a result of human emissions of greenhouse gases, specifically including carbon dioxide.

Jerry Taylor Version #2 goes further. Having studied under-graduate political science at the University of Iowa, but without graduating, Version #2 now also accepts the need to address and manage climate change impacts … and risks and accepts also the economic rationale, indeed necessity, for doing so now, rather than putting it off until … forever … as he long had argued for.

Having left behind him the Cato Institute and other climate “contrarian” partisans, interests, and individual climate science “deniers,” Taylor may yet come to be seen, in this second iteration, as being among the most quotable and effective communicators and proponents for climate action. And as one who to at least some extent has the ear of many on Capitol Hill disinclined to be seen as accepting the science or policy gravitas of ongoing atmospheric warming.

Jerry Taylor Version #1 and Jerry Taylor Version #2. It’s kind of a BC/AD situation, and an evolution that was triggered, interestingly enough, by a face-to-face challenge from well-known and feisty climate action activist and author Joe Romm, of the Center for American Progress and Climate Progress website.

Strange bedfellows that, many would surely say.

It’s Jerry Taylor Version #2 who is the focus of this month’s Yale Climate Connections’ video by independent videographer Peter Sinclair, of Midland, Mi.


*Taylor says he doesn’t care to be described as a “libertarian” though that may be how many see him. “I’m a very heterodox libertarian at best,” he says – which means he’s unconventional or unorthodox among those seen as straight-out libertarian. “If I must be labeled ideologically, perhaps ‘moderate’ would be most correct,” Taylor now says. It’s an adjective few in the climate community might have thought appropriate not so long ago.



Filed under: Bud Ward, Peter Sinclair, This is not cool

Subscribe to Yale Climate Connections
Get the latest updates with our newsletter and feeds.

More Stories

 

[Smurf1976]

Better scuttle your SUVs and decomission the aircon chaps.

I’ll need the SUV to drive through the flood waters and I’ll need the aircon to keep cool due to the rising temperature.

Only trouble is that the SUV might get a bit dirty so I’ll need to use a ridiculous amount of water to clean it afterwards.

 

[Sean K]

Just finished a couple of good skeptic and Lukewarmer books on AGW. Good reads.

Lukewarmer by Patrick Michaels
Red Hot Lies by Chris Horner

 

[Knobby22]

Scientists get it wrong again. See the skeptics are right!
The arctic was meant to be ice free by 2050 and once again scientists models are wrong.
Now they say it may be 2030 due to the amazing temperatures present at the arctic and Greenland which are getting temperatures above freezing levels even though it is winter and there is no sun.