Skepticism about Climate Change

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Hurricanes aren't following an increase in quantity based on an Increase of CO2 warm water in the ocean or warmer temperatures in the air. See attached chart. So therefore, why not?

Because weather systems are too complex, too many factors involved to calculate in a reasonable amount of time. But then scientists do not say that the frequency is increasing either, so what's your point?

Why aren't there more storms every year?

I don't know, so that would be something to investigate.

Obviously there are other factors.

Other factors than what? It's more likely that there are simply too many factors involved to point to a simple/dominant one.

So the computer programs are not accurate even for climate change. We don't have all of the facts that should be the algorithm.

??? Climate change is something different than weather events.

Cheers,
Bart

[jtmiller]

I've generally decided that it isn't a good use of my time to try to convince a "denier" in the error of their ways. They will always grasp at some other silly straw.

The only hope is that pointing to sensible scientific facts will keep others from being drawn into their clutches.

This isn't going to get "fixed" in the US until we get rid of the current "administration" and its cadre of deniers of science in general and climate in particular.

It's embarrassing in the extreme...

jim

[Alan Klein]

Because weather systems are too complex, too many factors involved to calculate in a reasonable amount of time. But then scientists do not say that the frequency is increasing either, so what's your point?...
Cheers,
Bart

But scientists did say exactly that after the last major increase in the number of hurricanes a few years ago.  They said that would continue.  But it didn't increase.  In fact, the opposite happened and the frequency decreased.  So my point was that scientists were wrong. 

[Tim Lookingbill]

Noted on a science program on PBS last week explaining what causes hurricanes and it was said they act as the ocean's heat absorbers. Whenever the ocean waters heat up, hurricanes are produced but not on a consistent basis. There's no accurate way to calculate when and how many form year to year. Only computer models can track their course.

The main point left out is they couldn't indicate cause, frequency, quantity and location of the ocean heat that brings on the hurricanes making all this not so scientifically accurate if not barely qualifying as science.

[Alan Klein]

Interesting study on Hurricanes and Global warming. Note that the scientist believes that global temperatures will increase ( based on a significant 2-3°C (4-6°F) so he's not a "denier".  There will be a decrease in hurricane frequency (-25%), a small increase in speed (+3%) , rainfall (+10% but reduced overall numbers due to less cyclones may offset increase per cyclone)  and surge (+3%).  There will be a major increase in damage due to more population living along the coasts. 

SUMMARY:

How May Hurricane Activity Change in the Future?

      Again, all of this is not to say that manmade global warming is not real, nor unimportant. My reading of the research does suggest to me that there has been and should continue to be warming of the earth's climate due to the greenhouse gases of carbon dioxide and methane. And that there should be changes to hurricanes caused by this manmade global warming. But as described earlier, simply linking hurricanes to global warming is not sufficient. Quantifying the changes is critical for understanding how such alterations will affect mankind and coastal ecosystems.
      My interpretation of the climate change research suggests the following - assuming that there is a significant 2-3°C (4-6°F) global warming due to business-as-usual emissions (which is not a guarantee):
      Overall Tropical Storm and Hurricane Changes Due to Global Warming by 2100
 
Frequency: Numbers may see a moderate decrease (~25%)
Wind (Intensity): Small increase (~3% stronger)
Storm Surge: Small increase (~3% higher) produced by the hurricane (but also must add on additional amount from overall sea level rise)
Rainfall: Moderate increase per cyclone (~10% within ~325 km [200 mi]), but reduced overall numbers may offset increase per cyclone
Genesis Location/Track: Somewhat uncertain, but no indications of large changes

      These overall changes that may occur are relatively tiny and are several decades away, in my opinion. These conclusions are similar, though slightly smaller, than those indicated by a review panel of the topic of hurricanes and global warming that was recently published in Nature Geophysics in which I participated.
      What is much more important is the massive population buildup along the U.S. coastline and in countries of the Caribbean and Central America. Such increases in coastal inhabitants (not global warming) make mankind dramatically more vulnerable to hurricanes today than in the past with thousands at risk of injury or death along with damage totals in the tens of billions of dollars when a strong hurricane strikes. As an example, this figure shows the combination of Florida's coastal county population along with major hurricane strikes by decade during the 20th Century.

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_hurricanes/

[Robert Roaldi]

Noted on a science program on PBS last week explaining what causes hurricanes and it was said they act as the ocean's heat absorbers. Whenever the ocean waters heat up, hurricanes are produced but not on a consistent basis. There's no accurate way to calculate when and how many form year to year. Only computer models can track their course.

The main point left out is they couldn't indicate cause, frequency, quantity and location of the ocean heat that brings on the hurricanes making all this not so scientifically accurate if not barely qualifying as science.

Yes, it is extremely difficult to predict individual events in the middle of large-scale stochastic systems. In what way does that mean that it's not science? We observe, collect data, propose models, test them, that is science. A priori, we never understand everything about a topic until we study it.

[Ray]

Yes, it is extremely difficult to predict individual events in the middle of large-scale stochastic systems. In what way does that mean that it's not science? We observe, collect data, propose models, test them, that is science. A priori, we never understand everything about a topic until we study it.

I think Tim means it's not verified science. The non-scientific aspect of human-caused climate change is the false attribution of certainty to the claimed disastrous effects of rising CO2 levels.

This is not science, but a political ploy used to motivate the drive towards renewable energy. The true 'deniers' in this conflict of opinion are the alarmists who appear to be in denial about the requirements and essential application of the true scientific methodology before a degree of certainty can be achieved.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Yes, it is extremely difficult to predict individual events in the middle of large-scale stochastic systems. In what way does that mean that it's not science? We observe, collect data, propose models, test them, that is science. A priori, we never understand everything about a topic until we study it.

Didn't you read this from my post?...

There's no accurate way to calculate when and how many (hurricanes) form year to year. Only computer models can track their course.

The main point left out is they couldn't indicate cause, frequency, quantity and location of the ocean heat that brings on the hurricanes...

That's not what I call observe, collect data (no data to prove what makes oceans heat up only in one spot that causes the hurricanes-i.e. El Nino, La Ninia). No models to test for where and when heat in oceans cause hurricanes because we've proven science can't predict there occurrence.

It's guess work. That's not what I call science. I'm looking for applied science that delivers real data to predict when and where hurricanes occur and which ocean (Pacific or Atlantic or any other ocean). But "scientists" can't do this. They can only measure small scale peripheral random data like CO2 but can't accurately predict what they cause and when.

[Robert Roaldi]

I think Tim means it's not verified science. The non-scientific aspect of human-caused climate change is the false attribution of certainty to the claimed disastrous effects of rising CO2 levels.

This is not science, but a political ploy used to motivate the drive towards renewable energy. The true 'deniers' in this conflict of opinion are the alarmists who appear to be in denial about the requirements and essential application of the true scientific methodology before a degree of certainty can be achieved.

I don't follow. Tim's comment was about hurricanes, not global warming or politics. You're confusing my post with another discussion, I think.

[Robert Roaldi]

Didn't you read this from my post?...

That's not what I call observe, collect data (no data to prove what makes oceans heat up only in one spot that causes the hurricanes-i.e. El Nino, La Ninia). No models to test for where and when heat in oceans cause hurricanes because we've proven science can't predict there occurrence.

It's guess work. That's not what I call science. I'm looking for applied science that delivers real data to predict when and where hurricanes occur and which ocean (Pacific or Atlantic or any other ocean). But "scientists" can't do this. They can only measure small scale peripheral random data like CO2 but can't accurately predict what they cause and when.

You're making assumptions and judgements about a complex field of study based on a reporter's understanding as voiced during a popular TV show.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Founder of Weather Channel John Coleman schools CNN on Climate Change:

https://www.facebook.com/AmericanTruthSeekers/videos/1875942969323910/

 

[Tim Lookingbill]

You're making assumptions and judgements about a complex field of study based on a reporter's understanding as voiced during a popular TV show.

What popular TV show? I was referring to a PBS science based program on what makes hurricanes and  how they act as the ocean's heat absorber. 

[LesPalenik]

Wind energy is getting cheaper and more cost effective than nuclear.

Industry watchers had expected the guaranteed price for power from windfarms around Britain’s coast to come in somewhere between £70 and £80 per megawatt hour, below the £92.50 for a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point.

But the “exceptionally low” results of a government auction on Monday for subsidy contracts show two offshore windfarms will be built for £57.50 per MWh, way below even the most extreme predictions. The price is half of what new offshore windfarms were being awarded just two years ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/11/huge-boost-renewable-power-offshore-windfarm-costs-fall-record-low

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

It's guess work. That's not what I call science. I'm looking for applied science that delivers real data to predict when and where hurricanes occur and which ocean (Pacific or Atlantic or any other ocean). But "scientists" can't do this.

Tim,

You are asking for the impossible. Science can do it, but it would require an impossible/unpractical investment in a huge number of additional data probes in the oceans and in the atmosphere (besides the money involved, ships and airplanes would also be obstructed). That would also require many more supercomputers to calculate on all that data. Given that some Governments deny science, also reduces any chance of such a system getting built.

They can only measure small scale peripheral random data like CO2 but can't accurately predict what they cause and when.

That's not true, without the CO2 in the atmosphere our Global temperatures would be much lower, and the amplitudes between day and night would be much higher. Human activity caused (anthropogenic) increases in the Natural CO2 levels will add a few degrees Celsius to the global temperatures. That additional warming will heat up the oceans over time (leading to more powerful hurricanes), and the increased evaporation from the warmer oceans will be taken up by an also warmer atmosphere, thus causing larger amounts of precipitation when it falls. Science has no problem with that, the difficulty in making long term predictions is due to the unknown influence of humanity's response, and because of limitations in available data (past and present).

Predicting exactly when and where it will happen is as difficult as predicting the lottery. The statistics are known, but they only apply to large numbers of samples, not to individual occurrences (which are subject to uncertainty margins, standard deviations). Fortunately for us, hurricane frequencies are low, which does complicate the statistical outcomes. In addition, there are numerous additional factors that influence these weather events (which is not the same as climate change). But some of the trends are clear.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Founder of Weather Channel John Coleman schools CNN on Climate Change:

John Coleman is known for many wrong or misleading statements. The Wikipedia page about him says:
QUOTE    ... Critics of Coleman have pointed out that each of these claims is wrong or misleading, questioned his lack of academic credentials, and note that he has not conducted any scientific research in the area of climate change.

He's an American TV weatherman and founder of The Weather Channel but, while he calls himself a scientist, he has no academic credentials.

Enough said about him.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

John Coleman is known for many wrong or misleading statements. The Wikipedia page about him says:
QUOTE    ... Critics of Coleman have pointed out that each of these claims is wrong or misleading, questioned his lack of academic credentials, and note that he has not conducted any scientific research in the area of climate change.

He's an American TV weatherman and founder of The Weather Channel but, while he calls himself a scientist, he has no academic credentials.

Enough said about him.

Cheers,
Bart

Yes.   We should rely on scientific experts like Al Gore.

[Ray]

That's not true, without the CO2 in the atmosphere our Global temperatures would be much lower, and the amplitudes between day and night would be much higher.

Don't be silly Bart. Without CO2 in the atmosphere all the plants would die, and there'd be terrible chaos as rich people competed for the limited amount of food that could be grown in greenhouses that were injected with CO2.

Increased CO2, increased precipitation and increased warmth, all tend to produce greater crop yield, which is of benefit to mankind, considering there are about a billion or more undernourished and starving people on our planet.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Don't be silly Bart. Without CO2 in the atmosphere all the plants would die, and there'd be terrible chaos as rich people competed for the limited amount of food that could be grown in greenhouses that were injected with CO2.

But there would be no Global Warming either !  There are those who deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that's why it's, unfortunately, necessary to illustrate its capacity to increase global temperature. Science has known this for a long time.

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

John Coleman is known for many wrong or misleading statements...

... Enough said about him.

Ad hominem, Bart, ad hominem.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Ad hominem, Bart, ad hominem.

Facts, Slobodan, Facts.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/nov/03/weather-channel-founder-not-credible-on-global-warming

And just listen to the claims he makes in the video you linked to:
- I am a scientist
   No, he's not, at least not in Climate change, and without publications. He has a degree in Journalism.
- No consensus on globalwarming
   No, not 100% but that will never be the case. It's only 97% of the scientists in that field do agree that global warming is largely anthropogenic.
- Climate change is not happening
   It is.
- There is no significant man-made global warming now ...
   No true. The other possible causes, such as changes in the earth's orbit, cannot explain the rising temperatures.
- There is no global warming
   Not true, global temperatures (of atmosphere and oceans) are rising, and the data is available.
- The US government will only supply money to scientists who support 'the hypothesis of the Democratic party'.
   I guess that he doesn't understand the peer reviewed scientific process.
- 31000 scientists who have signed a petition that it's not valid.
   That petition was a joke, and was not signed by just scientists.
And that's in just a few minutes of my time wasted with his nonsense.

The man is a joke, nothing ad hominem about it, he just proved it himself again.

Cheers,
Bart