iNow

The point is, however, that GCM's are not universally regarded as the climate equivalent to holy scripture - not to be questioned on pain of blasphemy inquisition.

Name one person here who has suggested any such thing. Give an exact quote, or STFU.

They are incomplete, and imperfect, and wide open to question and to criticism.

Indeed, and you and I are in perfect alignment on that point, but until you quantize your criticisms, you're not doing science. Quoting authorities is, well, there's a fallacy there. At the very least, share the numbers said authority shared to put the criticisms into context.

Numbers, Lance. Until you share those, you're hand waving.

" The temptation to interpret model noise as forecast information invades our living rooms every night. ......."the details we see on TV weather forecasts are noise from the models. I think we are having exactly the same problem with climate projections."........"they cannot give us trustworthy forecasts of climate for regions as small as most countries are."

Small point of clarification. It's FAR easier to model global yearly averages than it is to model what the weather will be like in Bumfuk Montana on Wednesday night at 6:43.

I've already expressed this idea to you before, but I'll express it again (in fact, IIRC, I got this idea from swansont, not sure though). Think of waves hitting a wall at the beach. Every minute many waves hit a certain height on that wall. When the tides come in, the spot the waves reach is higher, and when they go out, the spot they reach is lower.

Now, I may not be able to point to an exact spot on that wall and say, "The next wave will hit exactly here, and the wave after that will hit exactly there," but what I can do with incredible accuracy is to say, "The average height the waves will hit over the next 24 hours is here."

This is the difference between modelling weather and modelling climate, and it's a very important distinction for you to try to wrap your head around.

I have no doubt that iNow, swansont and their debate supporters will be able to find alternative references that contradict this, and say that models are wonderful.

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to call them wonderful, but they're incredibly powerful and accurate. You are again belittling the position of those who disagree with you (you wonder why you get attacked?) Really, Lance... How many times are you going to make me share this with you before you stop repeating the same debunked point? Maybe you should spend some time actually reading it and the links it contains.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=441763&postcount=7

Being skeptical is one thing, but continuing to deny something when it's been thoroughly and repeatedly proven is not what good skeptics do.

Likewise, chickens with four wings, cloned beef, or any other abberation of an animal you can think of.

Yummy... Reading this made my mouth water. I mean, a chicken with four legs? I might start believing in god if there were such a thing available. Well, maybe I would not go THAT far, but it would still totally rock.

Also, I'd like someone to clone me a t-bone steak that doesn't cause heart disease. Hell yeah! Pass the genetically modified sweet corn while you're at it, and the genetically modified strawberries for desert. If they glow too, that's just a bonus and I can save on electricity while I eat.

I thought this graphic was insightful:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/ersstv3.php

Also, a wealth of information here:

http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/cmb/sst_analysis/

One last spiffy one:

http://ghrsst.jpl.nasa.gov/

We'll likely be hearing about this designer babies thing from those who give a rats pecker about what the Vatican says or thinks (after all, the church was so spot on with Galileo and other "immoral" scientific advances these past few centuries):

http://www.healthzone.ca/health/article/552805

It's only a matter of time before they equate condoms with abortion.

Is it possible you struggle to effectively communicate, and that your word choice sometimes leads you into these problems?

Or, do you truly think that every single other person who responds to these threads is too caught up in dogma... so caught up that they can't see past their own blinders and understand what you ask, because your questions are always framed so quantitatively and crisply?

You also get attacked because your posts are not made in a vacuum. You have a history here, and just like others do with me, your future comments are often interpretated based on past posts and arguments you've had.

I got some at IKEA, too. The thing is, IKEA doesn't distribute to a home center or grocery store near you (the "rhetorical" you which goes with the "rhetorical" they).

Nice.

Slight correction, in the "Jon Stewart touches kids" section, he said, "Remember, kids. You only have a 42% chance of going to jail if you commit murder, but you have a 50% chance of going to jail if you are the Illinois governor."

Suck on that, kids.

Since there was some trivia shared above, I thought it funny (sad?) that 4 of the last 8 Illinois governors have been sent to jail for corruption.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=213357&title=d-il-weed

Have you tried wiki?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine_triphosphate

Obama made statements in support of NASA in the later stages of the campaign, after earlier criticizing it and suggesting cut-backs. I think NASA is relatively safe, but they could face some sort of cut-back, probably combined with increased support for private space initiatives.

Obama's choice of Chu for energy reinforces his attention to the science, but it seems that there has been some friction between his transition team and existing NASA managment:

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/12/nasa-has-become.html

IIRC, DH commented on some of this way back during the primaries when Obama was still battling with Clinton.

Quoting from Swansont's reference.

 

"Conclusion

So who's right? Given the uncertainties in estimating tropical cyclone intensity presented by Drs. Gray, Landsea, and Knaff, plus the very large disagreement with the theory of hurricane intensification, it is unlikely that the large 80% increase in Category 4 and 5 hurricanes found by Webster et al. is real. There does appear to be some increase, but it is likely much smaller. Many troubling questions need to be answered, such as why comparison of the most recent ten years (1995-2004) with the previous ten years (1985-1994) shows almost no increase in Category 4 and 5 storms globally, during a period when a substantial increase in SST occurred."

This was ALSO already covered by me back in post #26, where I ended by saying:

Finally, even if I grant you that the 80% figure is too high, you'll fail in the argument since my primary point is that stronger categories of hurricanes/cyclones are more common. ALL available and valid/accurate data support this point, so we're done here.

Swansont's reference, the one you just cited, also clearly rebuts your comments in post #66:

Your reference shows an increase in intensity of hurricanes through to about 1994 and a drop afterwards.

Since there was an increase cited, just a small one (no "drop afterwards"):

As I shared just now in post #68, a more thorough explanation for the various interpretations and debate on cause & frequency can be viewed here:

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/manuscripts/IWTC_Statement.pdf

IIRC, they glow because they incorporated DNA from cephalopods, not just because they were "cloned." (although, that would be pretty cool)

I had a feeling you might have met Chu after I'd read that his work involved laser-based atomic cooling. That's sweet.

As for the pick itself, it's feakin awesome. Obama seems to be standing by his word to choose based on merit and not cronyism. Response around the globe has been amazing, too. Finally we have a guy (how'd you say in your blog post?) who won't be fooled into thinking that some unfounded idea will be the silver bullet to all of our energy needs.

I like how things are shaping up, thus far. The selection of Chu for Energy only reinforces my decision to have voted Obama in the election. We maximize our chances for success by putting the best and the brightest into positions which matter.

Your reference shows an increase in intensity of hurricanes through to about 1994 and a drop afterwards.

No, actually, it doesn't. If you only look year-over-year, then sure, 1995 seems lower than 1994, but it's the longer term trend which matters.

This drop may explain why so many climate scientists are dubious about ascribing a direct relationship between hurricane intensity and global warming.

It explains nothing since you're working from a false premise. Higher intensity hurricanes are still trending significantly upward. Anyone who wants a more complete description for the reasons scientists have for being apprehensive of making any assertions regarding a direct causal relationship, look here.

Activity or intensity? We are talking about the latter, and they are different things, AFAIK. Activity is number of hurricanes. Intensity is strength of hurricanes.

Indeed. I tried to make that clear on page 1, this thread, in response to John.

Also, near the bottom of the link which Pangloss shared, they also explicitly state this:

Note to Lance... They are not "predicting" a 1%/yr increase, just showing the math based on that idealized assumption. Contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere will of course be less or more depending on the direction our society takes with regards to energy usage.

From a purely economical standpoint, changing the story line to one of global warming is brilliant. They are going to get all sorts of people all across the web talking about it for free since (as you put it) "global warming is too polarized of an issue."

Every time some schmuck comes into a forum talking about the movie and denying AGW, they'll stimulate post after post of rebuttals, all while doing so on the backbone of implicit marketing for the film (in similar ways to our discussions here over Religulous and Expelled, but without the docu/mockumenatary film format).

Just another perspective to consider.

From within the link I shared in post #26:

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/7/2287/2007/acp-7-2287-2007.pdf

http://climateprogress.org/2007/06/01/hurricanes-and-global-warming-once-more/

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5742/1844

Fig. 1. Running 5-year mean of SST during the respective hurricane seasons for the principal ocean basins in which hurricanes occur: the North Atlantic Ocean (NATL: 90° to 20°E, 5° to 25°N, June-October), the Western Pacific Ocean (WPAC: 120° to 180°E, 5° to 20°N, May-December), the East Pacific Ocean (EPAC: 90° to 120°W, 5° to 20°N, June-October), the Southwest Pacific Ocean (SPAC: 155° to 180°E, 5° to 20°S, December-April), the North Indian Ocean (NIO: 55° to 90°E, 5° to 20°N, April-May and September-November), and the South Indian Ocean (SIO: 50° to 115°E, 5° to 20°S, November-April).

Really, nearly all of your questions are addressed more than adequately here.

As I understand it, a hurricane can form when certain weather conditions prevail, and there is a suitable patch of ocean of minimum temperature 28 C down to a depth of about 100 metres.

Sorry, that is incorrect. The estimate is 26.5 C down to 50 meters.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/hurricane_formation.html

My main concern is to ask why such a small change in sea temperature is supposed to have caused an increase in hurricane frequency/intensity.

I am pretty sure I've already addressed this, but just to be sure, I will say it here. The magnitude of the change is of little signifance. The part which matters is whether or not that change pushes us over a certain threshold.

My comments were based on environment and ecology. The intelligence of settling in certain areas was an expressed opinion tangential to the main thread purpose discussing hurricanes.

Instead of recognizing the small tangent as off topic and leaving it merely as an expressed opinion, you not only ran with the tangent, but perpetuated it by reading FAR more into my words than I ever intended. You further yanked this thread into the Politics forum, which is never what was intended (as I imagine even Lance would concede).

It seems my PM to you has failed, and that is a shame.

Ocean temperatures are rising.

For this reason, more intense hurricanes are increasing in frequency.

Rising temperatures are also causing ice to melt and raise sea levels.

Coastal cities in hurricane areas are at greater risk due to the increase in intense hurricanes and rising sea levels.

Humans should recognize this risk and IMO move inland whenever possible.

That is all, Pangloss. You and I are done here now, too.

I don't think earthquakes are less likely than hurricanes.

It really doesn't matter what you think. There are more destructive hurricanes every year than destructive earthquakes. They are not completely random, as very real factors contribute to their formation. We also have the power to know that hurricane intensity is increasing (see my existing posts this thread for evidence in support of my position).

You're advocating the dismantling of the world's fourth largest economy because of that public threat, and softening the blow that by saying we can do it over a long period of time.

First, when exactly did this thread get moved to Politics? Second, give a quote where I did any such thing. Something specific. I have no idea what you're on about.

You've carried this tangent way too far, and you continue to argue against comments I NEVER MADE, and one which I already explicity retracted. I'm tired of you putting words in my mouth. My posts speak for themselves, and you're WAY out of line.

Pangloss - I've sent you a PM to discuss.

Also, when did this thread move into the Politics board?

Sonar might be easiest since there is so much existing history and data there. The others are more forward thinking, not yet occuring... so would require more speculation and logical support than just simple research and summaries of past events.

West of the San Andreas fault, population density decrease would be the most intelligent move to make. Yes, moving further inland seems to make the most sense.

However, as evidenced by frequency of natural disasters these past few decades, as well as the total naturally caused destruction by location, natural threats to California as a whole (with the possible exception of wild fires) are much less critical than the threats to specific cities like Galveston and NOLA. Further, much of the motivation of my comments was related to global climate change, it's impact on hurricanes and rising sea levels (in other words, on topic). These factors do not impact issues such as continental drift and tectonic plate movement, so your mention of California is only peripherally related in that regard.

YOU are the one who brought up California. Why exactly am I being asked to support any points about it?

Oh well. The truth hurts. Average global yearly temperatures are rising, hence we are warming, no matter how frustrated you get by what we call global climate change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plus dont use .com sites please theres no way whatsoever to back up anything thats said because anyone could go create a site called nature.com and say that they know everything about the climate. Thanks

Nature is probably THE most respected scientific journal out there. Sorry, kid. You're not winning any brownie points. I feel like you're wasting my time. Take it easy.