Where Have the Hurricanes Gone?

[Caligastia]

The bet could be made in gold...which would be rather appropriate for people at this forum.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by dannubis
In general, things are getting warmer.

We however do not know if we are the cause of it.

So, the real question is: "Do we want to take the risk or not?"

Worst logic ever.

I don't know if there is a problem.

If there is, I don't know what the cause is.

However, decisive action is required!

meh!

[Solly]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Would it be possible to make a bet on global warming? I mean, are the purported effects something that could be seen within the lifetime of anyone alive today? If so, I think we should have a bet on it.

Good question. What do we use as a temperature index, and who decides what statistical techniques to use to derive it?

[dannubis]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking


Worst logic ever.

I don't know if there is a problem.

If there is, I don't know what the cause is.

However, decisive action is required!

meh!

No. It's more like:

I know there is a problem.

I don't know if our influence is the sole cause, but it sure is not helping.

So, what do we do ? Be carefull and change, our stick our head in the sand until weed grows out of our arses.

I do not advocate a complete and abrupt turnaround. I do however strongly support a progression towards an environment friendly technology and society.

[Solly]

Interesting read.

http://homepage.mac.com/williseschenbach/.Public/Bill_Gray_hurricanes.doc

[Solly]

How Did We Get Into This Warming Hysteria?

1. The winding down of the cold war and the perceived need to generate a new common enemy so as to keep the public willing to continue to support the large science efforts typical of our prior perceived need to keep ahead of the Soviets.

2. The banding together of an international group of sagacious government leaders, scientists, environmentalists, etc. who wanted a science-based political cause to unite behind. Global warming was an ideal vehicle for their desire to organize, propagandize, force conformity, and exercise political influence. Big world government could best lead (and control) us to a better world!

3. Natural causes of global climate change are not well understood. Who would be able to say with confidence that global warming was not human induced if you had no other physical mechanism to blame it on? Of course, many examples of temperature increase are going to be found during any warming trend. There has been a selective emphasis on observations of warming and a glossing over of data that shows no temperature change or cooling. The ignorance of other past historic events (Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age trends) and the many paleo-global warming-cooling events has also contributed.

4. The grant money desires of a broad spectrum of agriculturists, biologists, environmentalists, disease specialists, sociologists, weather and climate types, etc. New research missions to justify grant support needed to be found. The dangling of research funds is a powerful persuader. It didn’t matter much if the globe warmed or not. What was necessary was to know what would happen if it did. Who among us would be stupid enough to criticize this ‘need to know’ if we could get grant support to study it.

5. The media’s desire to profit from controversy of any type at the expense of critical evaluation. For instance, the surrender of media judgment by mouthing the verbatim views of almost any credentialed scientist out for notoriety, grant money, or who has a selective warming observation to show off. It makes for good press. Opposite examples of no climate change or cooling doesn’t make news. Why discuss these examples?

6. It is interesting to note that most of the primary players in the international global warming crusade are credible and experienced scientists with well deserved reputations. Most of them, however, have had limited or no experience with real weather and climate studies and weather forecasting. They are being asked to make technical decisions on topics for which they have little or no background. They tend to believe what a selective set of politically motivated scientists tell them. But how are Nobel Prize winners in physics, chemistry, or medicine (as brilliant as they might be) able to make scientifically sensible statements on the possible association of rising level of CO2 and global warming? They are just responding to the similar upward-slope of these two curves.

7. The universally recognized momentous contributions to society of the computer and the growing belief that almost everything coming out of a computer is numerically correct and valid. But computer output is only as good as input, and most of the GCM modelers have not put all the right things in. Computers only allow for a bad model to be precisely wrong!

8. The last 40 years of continuous improvement in initial value global numerical weather prediction out to 5-10 days. This has been a great success story. It has led to the false belief among many scientists (most of whom are without forecast experience) that this same approach could be extended to the longer climate periods.

9. The great technical achievements in the computer industry led to the encouragement of never before held beliefs that skillful numerical climate models could actually be constructed that would be able to deal with the gross complexity and infinite chaos of the climate system. All you needed was bigger and better computers.

10. The lack of understanding of the complicated physics of the cumulus convection process of the tropics and higher latitudes. This led to the naïve assumption that climate modelers would be able to ‘hop-scotch’ over the sub-grid scale parameterization problems in their models and get results which had validity. They were wrong. Cumulus convection was too complex of a problem for GCMs to face up too. Right or wrong, the GCMs proceeded forward with their output runs not knowing how to deal with the sub-grid scales. They, of course, would obtain the inevitable global warming output that they wanted. And this created a stir that led to favorable publicity and continued grant support. After awhile the GCMers had gone too far to turn back. They were now too committed to global warming to worry about their sub-grid scale parameterization problems. Retreat was unthinkable. Global warming had to be the answer at least until their retirement.

11. The take-up of the global warming cause by so many celebrities to demonstrate their social consciousness. Global warming was an ‘IN’ and fashionable cause among the elite. That they had absolutely no technical background to make such judgments did not matter.

12. The overall ‘quietude’ of the meteorological community – many of whom knew better. We are scientists and should be above all this media-hype and controversial political in-fighting? To paraphrase John Burke, “All that was required for the triumph of human-induced global warming was that a substantial number of those meteorologists who knew better said nothing.”

[Odin]

Dr. Gray needs to stay in meteorology, climatology is aparently out of his league. His argument is basically one huge conspiracy theory with no basis in fact.

[Caligastia]

Human-caused global warming has no basis in fact.

[RGBVideo]

In general, things are getting warmer.

We however do not know if we are the cause of it.

So, the real question is: "Do we want to take the risk or not?"

speak for yourself... I agree with The Mad Viking, this is a very bad line of reasoning. Coming up with solutions to problems you haven't understood...

[Odin]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Human-caused global warming has no basis in fact.

PA has no brain, FACT!

[Solly]

Originally posted by Odin



PA has no brain, FACT!

[dannubis]

One could interpret that smiley as looking for its brain you know...

[Solly]

There'll be a shedload of foolish-looking people about when this climate change nonsense is exposed for what it is.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Human-caused global warming has no basis in fact.

Right, and the doubling of the CO2 content of the atmosphere just happened all by itself. Riiiiiiiggghhht.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I did not say the moon was or was not created by the collision, only that the moon was around when life started and it was much closer then.

Wanna try again?

4 billion years ago after the "Earth" got smacked by an object almost large enough to destroy the planet. Because the collision was a glancing blow the Earth started spinning faster with a tilt (seasons), too fast for life to get far. The moon was much closer then

In order for the moon to be much closer then, it had to exist, ergo, you wrote that the moon existed when Earth got hit. See, this is where you keep getting in to trouble. You write one thing. People call you on it. Then you start arguing that you never wrote that in the first place and that we're wrong for calling you on it. You're even going to argue that you didn't write what I just quoted.