billvon 3,107
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>But I've simply set it up as impeachment . . . .
Yeah, I figured that. But again, that's political spin, not science. You seem to base your theories on what you need to win a future argument rather than on the most scientifically likely explanation.
Yeah, I figured that. But again, that's political spin, not science. You seem to base your theories on what you need to win a future argument rather than on the most scientifically likely explanation.
[Reply]You seem to base your theories on what you need to win a future argument rather than on the most scientifically likely explanation.
What argument do you think I want to win? If it is, "there is more than one explanation for what we are seeing" then yes. That's one I'm willing to win.
Have you any criticisms of the mechanism I suggested relating to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation? You are attacking me and insinuating about my motivations rather than discussing the problems (which I suspect are numerous) with my proposed mechanism.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
brenthutch 444
What "this" are you referring to? I IPCC has now stated that they have "low confidence" in weather events being tied to AGW.
billvon 3,107
>What argument do you think I want to win?
The argument that you are setting the groundwork to "impeach."
>Have you any criticisms of the mechanism I suggested relating to the Pacific Decadal
>Oscillation?
The PDO plays a similar role in typhoon formation that the ENSO plays - a local oscillatory mode that changes one of the most basic components of storm formation, surface water temperatures. These cycles are overlaid on the longer term variations caused by forcings like anthropogenic warming. Thus the sum of all of the above influences determine storm formation.
Thus to answer your question in a very general sense - yes, they all play a role.
To answer your specific statement - that "the oscillations will be proven to be the cause" - no. They will be one of the many causes.
The argument that you are setting the groundwork to "impeach."
>Have you any criticisms of the mechanism I suggested relating to the Pacific Decadal
>Oscillation?
The PDO plays a similar role in typhoon formation that the ENSO plays - a local oscillatory mode that changes one of the most basic components of storm formation, surface water temperatures. These cycles are overlaid on the longer term variations caused by forcings like anthropogenic warming. Thus the sum of all of the above influences determine storm formation.
Thus to answer your question in a very general sense - yes, they all play a role.
To answer your specific statement - that "the oscillations will be proven to be the cause" - no. They will be one of the many causes.
rushmc 23
QuoteThey will be one of the many causes.
Ah
I think that is his and many others point
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 3,107
>I think that is his and many others point
It is my point as well. AGW won't create deserts out of rainforests; it will just make dry areas a little drier. It won't make winters in Maine 90 degrees; it will just make the hottest days a little hotter and the coldest days a little less cold. It won't create superstorms out of squalls; it will just make some of the more intense storms a little more intense.
In the language of science it is a signal superimposed over normal weather variations. It's like having high blood pressure; your arterial blood pressure still swings dramatically from systolic to diastolic, the average pressure is just a bit higher.
It is my point as well. AGW won't create deserts out of rainforests; it will just make dry areas a little drier. It won't make winters in Maine 90 degrees; it will just make the hottest days a little hotter and the coldest days a little less cold. It won't create superstorms out of squalls; it will just make some of the more intense storms a little more intense.
In the language of science it is a signal superimposed over normal weather variations. It's like having high blood pressure; your arterial blood pressure still swings dramatically from systolic to diastolic, the average pressure is just a bit higher.
brenthutch 444
What will it do to Lake Placid NY on Memorial Day weekend?
rushmc 23
billvon>I think that is his and many others point
It is my point as well. AGW won't create deserts out of rainforests; it will just make dry areas a little drier. It won't make winters in Maine 90 degrees; it will just make the hottest days a little hotter and the coldest days a little less cold. It won't create superstorms out of squalls; it will just make some of the more intense storms a little more intense.
In the language of science it is a signal superimposed over normal weather variations. It's like having high blood pressure; your arterial blood pressure still swings dramatically from systolic to diastolic, the average pressure is just a bit higher.
I agree with nearly all of what you post except for the AWG part
The change is normal not man made
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
brenthutch 444
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/agw_theory_has_failed_all_tests_so_alarmists_return_to_the_consensus_hoax/
When will the warmist get a clue?
When will the warmist get a clue?
billvon 3,107
The website "Icecap" was started by Joseph D'Aleo, who is also the executive director. He gets the money to operate it from the Frontiers of Freedom. Who are they?
================
Frontiers of Freedom, which has about a $700,000 annual budget, received $230,000 from Exxon in 2002, up from $40,000 in 2001, according to Exxon documents. George Landrith, President of FoF told the New York Times. "They've determined that we are effective at what we do," he said. Exxon essentially took the attitude, "We like to make it possible to do more of that".
================
Lot of very gullible deniers out there.
================
Frontiers of Freedom, which has about a $700,000 annual budget, received $230,000 from Exxon in 2002, up from $40,000 in 2001, according to Exxon documents. George Landrith, President of FoF told the New York Times. "They've determined that we are effective at what we do," he said. Exxon essentially took the attitude, "We like to make it possible to do more of that".
================
Lot of very gullible deniers out there.
QuoteLot of very gullible deniers out there.
Matched by the gullible alarmists. When the Union of Concerned Scientists is tweeting about sea level rise in the Northeast and the Gulf Coast, we have a problem.
Turns out that climate science is an adjunct for politics. They are inseparable at this time.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
brenthutch 444
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
How about these?
How about these?
kallend 2,146
lawrocket******Bill do yourself a favor and read the study, Kallend can help you with the math.
Regardless of how this study pans out under greater scrutiny, I found this to be a fun article comparing the skeptic approaches used in both the CFC and AGW debates.
Blues,
Dave
I can cherry pick other examples of concensus that got blown away. Pangenesis, for example. The solid state universe is another one. How about Maxwellian electromagnetics?
"SOLID state"???? DOn't you mean "steady state"? I don't believe that was ever a consensus position.
Last time I checked, physics professors were still teaching Maxwell's equations in E and M courses.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
brenthutch 444
brenthutchI'm still waiting for kallend to let us know how "think progress " has more credibility then the "international journal of modern physics"
Kallend have you had a chance to review the peer reviewed study published in the International Journal of Modern Physics? Or is it invalidated because it was I who brought it to your attention?
kallend 2,146
brenthutch***I'm still waiting for kallend to let us know how "think progress " has more credibility then the "international journal of modern physics"
Kallend have you had a chance to review the peer reviewed study published in the International Journal of Modern Physics? Or is it invalidated because it was I who brought it to your attention?
Maybe it's because I've been on vacation and had better things to do with my time.
1 peer reviewed study out of thousands doesn't change much.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
brenthutch 444
kallend******I'm still waiting for kallend to let us know how "think progress " has more credibility then the "international journal of modern physics"
Kallend have you had a chance to review the peer reviewed study published in the International Journal of Modern Physics? Or is it invalidated because it was I who brought it to your attention?
Maybe it's because I've been on vacation and had better things to do with my time.
1 peer reviewed study out of thousands doesn't change much.
I did not know that was how science worked.
I'm human. I may. [Cool] Maybe someone will nominate me for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Or, I may say, "at least two theories exist for what we're seeing." Or say, "this is natural variability."
But I've simply set it up as impeachment for anyone who wants to attribute an increase in north Atlantic cyclones to global warming
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites