New peer reviewed study: Surge in North Atlantic hurricanes due to better detectors, not climate change

Tracks of all known Atlantic tropical cyclones...

Tracks of all known Atlantic tropical cyclones from 1851 to 2005 Image via Wikipedia

Told ya so, here

From the American Geophysical Union weekly Journal Highlights:

A spate of research has indicated there may be a link between climate change and the prevalence of North Atlantic tropical cyclones. Upon closer inspection, however, researchers have noted that the prominent upswing in tropical cyclone detections beginning in the mid twentieth century is attributable predominantly to the detection of “shorties,” tropical cyclones with durations of less than 2 days. That the apparent surge in cyclone activity could be attributable to changes in the quality and quantity of detections has gained ground as a potential alternative explanation.

Using a database of hurricane observations stretching back to 1878, Villarini et al. try to tease out any detectable climate signal from the records. The authors note that between 1878 and 1943 there were 0.58 shorty detections per year, and between 1944 and 2008 there were 2.58 shorty detections per year. This increase in shorties, which the authors propose may be related to the end of World War II and the dawn of air-based reconnaissance and weather tracking, was not mirrored by an increase in tropical cyclone activity for storms longer than 2 days.

The authors compare the rate of shorty detections against a variety of climate parameters, including North Atlantic sea surface temperature, mean tropical sea surface temperature, the North Atlantic Oscillation, and the Southern Oscillation Index. The authors find that North Atlantic sea surface temperatures were related to tropical cyclones of longer than 2 days’ duration but were not related to the rate of short detections. Additionally, for every decade after 1950s the occurrence of shorties seems to be related to a different climate parameter. Both of these findings are highly suggestive of data quality problems for the shorties record. The researchers note that their finding does not rule out the possibility of a climate-driven increase in shorties over the twentieth century. Rather, any existing trend will be imperceptible, as it is masked by data quality issues.

Source: Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, doi:10.1029/2010JD015493, 2011

http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010JD015493

Title: Is the recorded increase in short-duration North Atlantic tropical storms spurious?

Authors:

Gabriele Villarini: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA; and Willis Research Network, London, UK;

James A. Smith: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA;

Gabriel A. Vecchi and Thomas R. Knutson: Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.

Advertisements

87 thoughts on “New peer reviewed study: Surge in North Atlantic hurricanes due to better detectors, not climate change

  1. “the apparent surge in cyclone activity could be attributable to changes in the quality and quantity of detections”
    Ya think?
    Duh.

  2. Lots of new articles that run opposite of Al Gore’s teachings.
    Could the wheels be coming off the AGW bus?

  3. Amazing how much weather one sees when your eyes are wide open (or you have the instruments to detect it).

  4. “The researchers note that their finding does not rule out the possibility of a climate-driven increase in shorties over the twentieth century. Rather, any existing trend will be imperceptible, as it is masked by data quality issues.”
    ###
    “Just because we have no data and all observations can be explained without CAWG, is no reason to dismiss CAWG.” Ya right.

  5. But we knew that, I guess we needed science to tell us that they are naming 10 minute fish storms, out in the middle of the ocean….
    Science does not get any better than this…..
    …first they define what “normal” is
    Then declare it’s not normal….
    …then declare it’s “unprecedented”
    Who exactly decided what “normal” is? and who was stupid enough to sit back and let them do it?

  6. Yes, like so many things these days, we improve the rate of detection/discovery & it looks like an increase.
    It’s rather like crime figures, there is always one or other main political party claiming rises in crime are casued by poor policing/government policies, but when one looks into these, it often turns out that better detection rates, better encouragement of members of the public to report crime, etc, are the result, & the “apparent” crime firgures go up! Just like natural disasters, we live in the communication age. Two hundred years ago nobody outside of Japan would have known about the Fukushima earth quake & tidal wave. 100 years ago no body would have known about Fukushima for a very long time, days or even weeks, maybe even months. Today news is instantaneous & it is sometimes watched as it happens, & the public have short memories. I dare say one could cobble together some figures to show there are more natural disasters today then ever before, but I suspect the underlying trend would be no greater than before in reality. Perception is everything!

  7. If you can’t see it… it ain’t there! This is a great lesson to pseudo scientists.
    When you wake up in the morning and open your eyes and see the world, it didn’t materialize at that moment. It was there when you weren’t looking at it.
    Remember the Ozone hole? When it was seen to exist for the first time…. well THAT was because we used aerosols. Remember radiation? It has been around for 13.5 billion years but now that we have super sensitive instruments to measure photons and gamma particles, radiation must be bad, our fault and nuclear power is anathema. But only since we had the tools to see it.
    The arctic sea Ice data set only extends back to 1978. As soon as the ice was looked at, it was bad because of humanity. The fact that the sea ice data set for the last 100,000 years is absent is irrelevant. Now that we can see it, humans must be ruining it.
    Hurricanes. We can see them way offshore now with satellites. Imagine if there were no satellite. How many would there be?
    What is the conclusion? As soon as humanity devises technology to measure something, that something is bad and we are the cause. That is the science mind set. Scientists cannot be trusted.

  8. Like anything in quantitative science, when you get better equipment you can see much more, either in limit of detection or resolution. The finer it gets, better standards and calibration you need. But, how do you do a historical calibration?

  9. “The researchers note that their finding does not rule out the possibility of a climate-driven increase in shorties over the twentieth century. Rather, any existing trend will be imperceptible, as it is masked by data quality issues.”
    The obligatory “We have found something that weakens the case for CAGW but, just in case we get blacklisted, we will also say CAGW might still be true”

  10. This is one of those “intuitive” issues that now seem to be born out by research. In otherwords, it seems logical that the advent of Satellite and Transatlantic flights would find more storms, and that the number of storms has not necessarily increased, just the detection. But saying that gets you snorted at by the AGW crowd. Until now. It is good to see someone actually looking into the issue on a scientific basis.

  11. There is an exact analogy – the US tornado count. During the past 60 years the annual number of strong tornadoes has declined (except for the La Nina related surges in 1974 and 2011), while the total number of reported tornadoes has increased. There has been an increase in the number of weather watchers and better technology, so the weak tornadoes are more likely to be counted.

  12. I am glad the lofty journals are now finding these things out, at the expense of taxpayer, no less.
    Seems to me such research is a waste of time. Rather than focusing upon the real hazards of tropical cyclones, they are constrained (not their fault, necessarily) to focus on what has become a real “hazard” in modern science:
    Namely, having to spend all one’s time defending and indemnifying against the groupthink, model fantasy-driven, assumptions of so-called “climate change”.
    And when it comes to the common sense of these conclusions, though, alot of us just want to say “duh”!
    Duh to the fact that we have better detection of tropical cyclone beasts these days…
    And double duh to how the nanny state approach has seemingly lowered its threshold when it comes to TC classification.
    Don’t get Joe Bastardi started on that one! 😉
    Every low level warm core circulation over the ocean…gets a name these days…no matter how benign.
    The egalitarian treatment of every “shortie”, in comparison to the real TC beast which actually deserve our life or death attention, is similar to overuse of “severe thunderstorm warnings” and other such warnings.
    It causes a cry wolf effect in the general populous. But I digress…
    Regardless, good news that this study…is proving…what common sense has already proven long ago. Either way, another notch in the Skeptic lipstick case.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  13. This is just another thread to be spun into the climate change web of deceit.
    No amount of real world data will convince the true believer.
    The English Channel could freeze over and the event would be rationalized to show how it’s all our fault.

  14. It is rarely appreciated by people who have only a passing familiarity with Statistics that so-called “rare events” (annual cyclones, radioactive decay of atoms, outbreaks of diseases, etc.) that the “normal” concepts of an “average” and a “standard deviation” do not apply.
    These events do not follow a normal distribution, but rather a Poisson distribution.
    In this situation the parameter of the distribution is called lambda, and it is simultaneously the ‘mean’ and the variance (the square of the standaard deviation), so statistical estimates of lambda require collecting very large sample sizes.
    If one counts lambda = 100 rare events, for example, the uncertainty in that number at the 95% confidence level (2 standard deviations), is about +/- 20. This is hardly quantitative (‘quantitative’ determination requires confidence limits within 10 percent of the measured value). Such would require 400 observations collected together, *just* to arrive at a quantitatively reliable estimate of the frequency. At current Atlantic tropical cyclone frequencies, we are seeing only about 100 per *decade*, so getting a “quantitatively reliable estimate of the frequency” requires counting up tropical cyclones for half a century or more.
    To determine a statistically meaningful *trend* would require at least three, preferably more, independent determinations of frequencies over non-overlapping time periods. The records do not go back that far.

  15. Latitude says:
    June 16, 2011 at 8:07 am
    But we knew that, I guess we needed science to tell us that they are naming 10 minute fish storms, out in the middle of the ocean….
    =====================================================================
    I hope we didn’t pay too much for this. And, this kinda torques me. When I’m feeling argumentative, I’ll go seek out some warmista spewing things like the increase of hurricanes……(I blame Dr. Curry for that.) And, I always have a nice retort something akin to “Yeh, ’cause the satellites of 1910 had a glitch in them!!”
    Still, there are some out there that won’t use logic of any sort and demand “peer-reviewed” papers before they will entertain a thought. ( I wonder about how those people get around in day-to-day life.) So, now I have this asinine paper, that essential states what a person of average intelligence already knew. Maybe they’ll find that one of the authors once filled is car with (gasp) regular unleaded and claim it is invalidated because he’s shilling for the oil companies.
    Well, we still have Dr. Maue’s ACE values!

  16. Nice one!
    Just shows that even with all out high-tech equipment we’re just the same as foraging animals, in that, when looking for something specific, we’re going to find more of it than if we just look aimlessly.
    It’s called ‘search image’.
    You can try it for yourselves: go out and look for a specific wild flower, or fungi. You’ll be surprised how many you suddenly find, compared to just traipsing around, chasing your dog.

  17. If a tropical cyclone that lasts than 2 days is a ‘shortie’, what do you call cyclones that less than 2 hours? We saw a few approaching that last. year. Nowadays we fly aircraft through cyclones almost on the hour and record the slightest hiccup in wind speed.

  18. Phil,
    I’m glad you linked that. When I saw the story a couple of weeks ago, I immediately thought “Shortys indeed, those are Tiny Tims!”.
    I guess it took a while to translate someone else’s blog analysis into peerreviewedliterature.

  19. Global hurricane activity between 1965 to 2008:

    “However, the global total number of storm days shows no trend and only an unexpected large amplitude fluctuation driven by El Niño-Southern Oscillation and PDO. The rising temperature of about 0.5°C in the tropics so far has not yet affected the global tropical storm days.
    Climate Control of the Global Tropical Storm Days (1965–2008), Wang, B., Y. Yang, Q.-H. Ding, H. Murakami, and F. Huang, Geophysical Research Letters, April 6, 2010 (Vol. 37, L07704″
    http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2010/2010GL042487.shtml

    Al Gore should start asking himself some honest and serious questions.
    http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

  20. “Shorties like a melody in my head that I can’t keep out. Got me singin like…”
    Wish they would have used some other term…

  21. Can anybody explain why it is the “denialist” web sites that seem to anticipate the science best? Well, *somebody* is in denial, anyway.

  22. Paul Westhaver, : “What is the conclusion? As soon as humanity devises technology to measure something, that something is bad and we are the cause. That is the science mind set. Scientists cannot be trusted.”
    I disagree. It is the abandonment of science and using pseudo-scientific principles to promote a false anti-human argument which is wrong. Scientists who conduct pure science and allow empirical evidence to be their guides, wherever that leads, can be trusted. Those who cherry-pick and filter evidence selectively to support a political argument are advocates, not scientists.

  23. The picture, above, says more than “a thousand words” about North Atlantic weather over the past century plus than most realize. Here is a larger view link –
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Atlantic_hurricane_tracks.jpg
    During the period of entry into the Little Ice Age, and the period of exit from the Little Ice Age (of which the period reflected in the picture is the most recent part) the pattern was different. Hummmm… but of course that little piece of knowledge doesn’t fit well with the AGW Mob who are only interested in social and economic revolution for the good of ah.. well the stupid masses.. that’s it, The Stupid Poor Huddled Masses of Mankind! Gee, aren’t they such an open-hearted, generous, brilliant group of caring people? Who really cares if their “Psyence” is a little “Psycadellic” and “Perverted”? Their doing it all for U.S. and the NEW World Order. Gee willikers! Shaazammmm!

  24. @Brian Hall
    “Stengel: “You can see a lot just by looking.””
    Actually, that paraphrase was from the OTHER famous philosopher of the Bronx Bombers – Yogi Berra. And, Yogi observed, rather than saw.
    No harm, no foul.

  25. heck, when i bought a Chevy HHR, I started seeing all those chevy HHRs on the road. I guess there were no chevy HHRs on the road,……. until i bought one

  26. NoAstronomer
    “What do you call cyclones that last less then 2 hours?”
    Quickies.
    Or on a hot day an afternoon delight ;>

  27. RockyRoad says:
    June 16, 2011 at 8:02 am
    “Amazing how much weather one sees when your eyes are wide open (or you have the instruments to detect it)”
    You can observe a lot by just watching. ~Yogi Berra

  28. Per Paul W.
    “Scientists cannot be trusted.”
    Too broad of a statement. The problem is that over the centuries, bad science didn’t really matter too much (except in the case of Lysenko’s work in Russia) because if they were wrong, the implications were academic and mattered little in the short run, and in the long run things were eventually corrected.
    Today with the ability of “news” to be rapidly disseminated, (falsely or otherwise) great damage can be wrought by bad science when in the hands of control freaks and biased Main Stream Media reporting with specific hidden agendas. It takes this combination today to upset the balance. When policy is unduly influenced by bad science and the political/social agendas that result, we now find that it is possible to drive this into rushed government mandated action, before the bad science is “outed”. Bad science is just that, and is of little long term consequence, but bad science coupled with activist agenda that is dangerous. We now are in the process of trying to “out” the bad science.
    .

  29. Take a look at the number and frequency of hurricanes for the year 2005! Now, that was a big year; neither before nor since has there been anything like it. Other than AGW, what was the reason for this? 1932 was second….

  30. LK M;
    Yeah, the original is ” You can observe a lot by just watching. ~Yogi Berra “, I guess.
    _________
    To the weirdly named tkjJEG above, why does the highest data point in a sample need to be explained? There always is one. And a lowest.
    Here’s a much better forecast based on AGW: the warmer the world gets, the lower the contrast between tropics and poles, and the milder and calmer the climate will be.

  31. tekguyjeffJeffrey Eric Grant says:
    June 20, 2011 at 3:48 am
    Take a look at the number and frequency of hurricanes for the year 2005! Now, that was a big year; neither before nor since has there been anything like it. Other than AGW, what was the reason for this? 1932 was second….

    Whoa, catch your breath there!
    You haven’t been following along, have you. Do you know how long we’ve been REALLY looking for tropical storms with modern equipment? Do some research and get back to us.

  32. tekguyjeffJeffrey Eric Grant says:
    June 20, 2011 at 3:48 am
    “Other than AGW, what was the reason for this?”
    I find this kind of limited thinking incredible. His reply is either a troll or hopelessly naive poorly informed individual. Tekguy please just follow along for a while here (ask question if you wish) and you might find some other really good scientific reasons proposed that are more plausible than AGW, which we are finding has as much credibility as: It happened because the Moon was in Virgo, and the Sun was in Sagittarius.

  33. I love how the planet could not POSSIBLY be changing. There is no way that a huge upsurge in population and addiction to dirty fuel can cause the planet to change. This isn’t even a complex idea. Yet, you hopelessly obsess about international organizations trying to what? Cap pollution? Seems harmless to all of us who don’t wear aluminum foil helmets.
    I’d be suprised if a single climate scientist even comes on this site for information. You are just a bunch of science haters who like to speak as if your smart enough to be a scientist. No wonder the most uninformed and brainwashed people I’ve ever talked to always link me back to this site.

  34. Oh dear,- another one pops up. Guess FWIW, I have to repeat again in response to fadedvision @12:35:
    ‘I find this kind of limited thinking incredible. His reply is either a troll or hopelessly naive poorly informed individual. …. and please just follow along for a while here (ask question if you wish) and you might find some other really good scientific reasons proposed that are more plausible than AGW,’
    So with that said again, fadedvision in a way offers:
    “I love how the planet could not POSSIBLY be changing.”
    If you had been doing your homework by actually reading for a limited time, no one with any credibility ever said the planet is not changing. The argument is over the degree and the cause.
    and:
    “Yet, you hopelessly obsess about international organizations trying to what? “
    If you are speaking about the IPCC, then I guess “we” are obsessed. Again, take some time to reflect what is going on there and again pay attention to what is said here and try very very hard to absorb some of the logic of the arguments of what may be some very serious failings of the IPCC. I keenly observe you are now conducting yourself modeled in the in the perfect role of “Truthers” you rail against. Pot & kettle routine going on here fadedv. To save possibly some time, let me repeat some of your prior Blog wisdom: “Actually, some truthers will not listen so it’s better to just save your breath.” I’m probably wasting my time but I am patient usually, so I’ll try anyway.
    Wow, now for another wild assertion I can’t let pass:
    “I’d be suprised if a single climate scientist even comes on this site for information.”
    I can see that you are a new arrival, as there are a number of recognized climate scientists that actually post articles here frequently and are quite active in the discussions.
    This partial quote says it all:
    “You are just a bunch of science haters….”
    Again, if you would bother to stay around a while to listen and read, you might just possibly see that real science is going on here and it is respected more than you think.
    You really need to take heart in the previous saying: ” You can observe a lot by just watching.”
    Sorry to say fadedvision, you have to overcome the really bad habit of: “Ready!,…Fire!,.. AIM!!!”

  35. You start, posting people who do not believe in climate change(who are climatologist). Then I will do the opposite, whoever wins is declared winner of the arguement. Since neither of us are scientists then our opinion on the matter is irrelevent.
    I’m not an expert on the climate but I do listen to people who are experts(unlike you). I’d be interested to see how many of your climatologist who deny climate change are on the payroll of oil companies also. This challenge I issue you will be the most telling bit of evidence you will ever see in your life. I’ll force you to acknowledge fact by littering your own stomping ground w/ evidence and I would be suprised if you can find 10 on your side. I am probably wasting my time too. I agree with you and I feel the same actually.

  36. fadedvision says: blah blah blah
    Your vision has truly faded, if you ever had any.
    Please provide one occasion where anyone here has seriously said climate doesn’t change.

  37. Fine, that survey was taken in 2008 and if you took a survey in 1888, 97% of practicing doctors at that time would have told you that blood-letting was a fine treatment for many diseases. Your argument while seemingly powerful to you- is so incredibly weak as I don’t know how you could ever be convinced that consensus in science is not proof. History of science is replete with big errors occurring where consensus at one time was overwhelming. Einstein had a saying about his work and he did not care about consensus. He basically said: “it takes only one person to show I am wrong”. To be specific and rebut your classical thinking in depth would waste your and my time plus the moderators. I urge you to lurk here for a while and get the drift where everything is going. If you want contrary opinions and need to gravitate to authority, take a look at the Oregon petition: http://www.petitionproject.org/
    The fundamental problem you will find out (providing you seek it) eventually is that with all the available records of temperatures the signal of AGW is so incredibly weak, meaning the actual signal produced by anthropogenic CO2 warming effects- can’t be distinguished from the background of natural climate changes occurring. Please read prior statement until you understand it. It is fundamental to the whole issue and unless you see this clearly, you can’t grasp what is being discussed here. Many climate scientists of great credentials claim to have found the signal, but I invite you to take a close look and suspend judgment until there is agreement and convergence of science on this issue. The scientists of the Oregon Petition and other skeptical scientists aka deniers, say: “not so fast”. That is basically what is going on here fadedvision. The scientists that habit this blog are doing that despite all the “noise” and distraction you read. If you continue to read and question you possibly might see the light, but I suspect you feel comfortable with your consensus mantra and “appeal to authority” zone. I hope your scientific history (mine does) includes the fact that we are still emerging from an ice age and it is and has been getting steadily warmer for several thousand years in natural jumps, dips and lurches. Hang on for the ride.
    Your ad hominem references to those “on the payroll of oil companies” will get no rise and your appeals to authority are classic symptoms of hollow arguments. This type of argument can be tossed back to the climate scientists and gets us nowhere. The science is not settled and another quote is appropriate: “If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” – Albert Einstein
    Some of us are hoping the research will provide answers and there will be a convergence eventually of various points of view. It has happened before and eventually I’m sure it will happen again. The problem is that policy is being driven by what many believe is bad science and that is unacceptable until there is convincing science better than what has been presented so far.

  38. You basically are still siding with the side of the outliers in this Oregon petition. I mean, 9K PHD’s which is important. I would imagine it is a very small minority of the scientists w/ PHD’s. Also, I’d rather see it specifically reduced to climatologist. More specialized in this field of study than for example geologist which is technically a scientist and one that makes his/her money on oil. I know that sounds hollow but it also sounds American. Making money however you can. It’s a reality in America and that’s undeniable.
    Food for thought. I came here because I feel that you guys are winning the argument and with 3% of the climatologist on your side I wonder how that can be. Your very nice people and for the future I hope that you do not try to convince unsuspecting people into believing that you have more than 3% of people who know about the subject on your side.
    I just want my truck back.

  39. fadedvision,
    You’re kidding nobody. The OISM has over 31,000 co-signers – several times more than the entire alarmist contingent has been able to assemble in all of its counter-petitions. That is numerical proof that the consensus is on the side of the skeptics.

  40. BTW, science is NOT a contest of how many others agree with you. I have been looking for a long time for the proof that the rising temps are caused by a rise in atmospheric CO2, and have yet to find it. It is of interest that the models all point in one direction — could it be that the modelers get together in conferences somewhere and compare notes? One side is propelled by BIG OIL FUNDING and the other side is propelled by BIG GOVERNMENT GRANTS. I think NOT!
    My comment about the 2005 hurricane activity was to point out that natural variation can sometimes be quite large (and still be statistically insignificanr). the year 2005 had twice as many Atlantic hurricanes than “normal”.

  41. fadedvision says:
    June 20, 2011 at 4:44 pm
    Actually, I found a pertinent article for you. Apparentely 97% of climatologist agree that humans are playing a role in climate change. That’s so far beyond the margine of error that it begs the question. Who are you listening to if not the experts in the field?

    Fade – you really are new, right? Do you actually know where that 97% came from? Try 75 Scientists. That is right! Only 75. Your precious survey asked over 10k scientists, of which only about 3k actually responded. They then cooked the numbers until they could arrive at a figure of 75 of 77 scientists agreed (what happened to the other 10k scientists?).
    Want a REAL link? Try this one: http://probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/012009_Doran_final1.pdf
    And do some REAL research. Which means looking at the source, not just the fluff pieces in the MSM.

  42. Phil you must have skimmed the article. The 97% came specificailly from climatologist.(the biggest experts in climate research) People specialized in the study of this subject that this blog is devoted to. It said that 46% of geologist did not believe in climate change(big suprise, they make money off oil). You need to slow down when reading the article and I am not going to endulge you about “the media”. This isn’t a witch hunt, CNN is a fair news source. What do they have to gain by hurting oil companies? Oil companies pay hella cash to get their propoganda commercials on all news channels. I mean, you gotta wonder how on earth companies can spend that much money on advertisements that don’t sell anything. The jest of their commercials is to do PR. I mean, how many commercials out there do no sales? Just oil.
    Jeffery I don’t understand your point. Are you trying to explain motive?

  43. fadedvision says:
    June 21, 2011 at 9:29 am

    No, I did not skim the article. Did you even read mine? it goes behind the numbers and shows EXACTLY what I said. The 97% is statistically irrelevant, and just a PR gimmick. In other words, it has no bearing in reality. The 97% figure comes from a total of 77 out of a total of over 10k. And then only 75 (not 77) agreed with the 2 loaded questions. Indeed, the questions did not even ask if Man was the sole cause of the warming, or the major cause of the warming, only if man was A “significant” factor. Clearly you have a reading comprehension problem as the link I gave you is less than 2 pages, and in easy to understand english.
    So let’s take a scientific poll. All those who say that man is causing all the global warming, say yes, and the rest say no. Poll is limited to registered users at WUWT. Upon compilation, want to bet the opposite of what the UofI came up with? Why not? My poll is AS SCIENTIFIC, and AS VALID as that one is. But if I do not like the numbers, I will just add more qualifiers to the numbers until I get the exact results I want.
    You are just plain wrong. Man up and admit it.

  44. I’m going to start by laughing. I read your article and it really did nothing but underline my main point. People who know about the climate had different opinions than the scientists that aren’t specialized in the subject(I’m not even sure why they are asked).
    Your essentially making this statement phil. You believe the people who believe the same way that already did before you even looked into the subject. If that point is simply made by a geologist(who makes his money off oil). Then you add them into the pool of climatologist and then it’s a wash. It’s like this example. I want to buy 20 lbs of beef that looks like it is not fit to eat. I take 20 inspectors and 99% of them agree don’t buy the beef, then you add in 20 beef salesman and of them 99% of them say buy the beef(because they are the ones selling it). Now the poll is 50/50 and see the water is muddied. I don’t know which way to chose!
    The thing is, I know that the 20 inspectors actually know what they are talking about and that the motive of the beef salesman is to sell beef. Therefore their opinion is irrelevant.
    If that is your idea of a scientific poll then I could make any issue paliable to you. Even in your own example and link the climatologist and those who had written about the subject in scientific journals were overwhelmingly in the opinion that man was making an impact on his environment. Also that the temperature has risen.
    Also, apparently you do not understand how scientific polls work by having a vote on a website that is devoted to tricking people into not listening to the experts. That is your idea of a scientific poll? You want me to man up and admit climate change isn’t real? I’ll do that whenever you go to school and learn science. Then after learning how theories work and how polls work. Then you can go work in the field, collect data, and form objective conclusions one way or another and support them with real data. Otherwise we’re shooting past each other on here.
    Look, I’m not an expert on scientists. I am just a loud mouth a hole who actually listens to scientists and represents them w/o their permission. You, on the other hand, have taken a leap of faith and decided to listen to non-experts about a subject that you obviously already have an opinion about. Then you use whatever means you can to push your point of view, even if the facts say the contrary. It’s sad really, have you ever heard the story of “the allegory of the cave”?
    Look buddy, it’s all in the reflexes!

  45. faded….I made two points.
    1. There is so much political rhetoric in this scientific issue that the people who really know (unlike us) DON’T, OR WON’T, DEBATE THIS IN A PUBLIC FORUM. Instead, they point fingers and misquote opinion pols. The science gets lost in the fog.
    2. I thought this blog was about hurricanes. I have done a study of those in the Atlantic and merely pointed to the year 2005. It is quite the outlier, and yet, it is still within the statistical realm of “normal”. At the time it was blasted aound as just the beginning of AGW caused hurricane seasons….just wait! And then what?
    I am just an Engineer with many years’ effort in the Environmental and Energy Conservation arenas. I like to dig into the ‘facts’. Unfortunately for me, this subject is loaded with innuendo, adhominum attacks and flat out hysteria. I find that I spend more time sifting than learning. I have learned to see wool when being pulled over my eyes.
    BTW, please spell my name correctly.

  46. fv;
    Any sampling and statistical specialist would tell you that the procedure followed has exactly 0.0001% chance of being accurate, give or take 0.00002%. Your selection criteria must be set in stone PRIOR to beginning to count, and the resultant tally cannot be altered on ANY grounds. If you determine that your criteria were no good, make some new ones and start over with a new “population”.
    These wet-behind-the-ears students followed none of the iron-clad rules for valid sampling and analysis. That you accept their work says all we need to know about your understanding of science, data, and statistics.

  47. faded…one more point (from your last post):
    “If that is your idea of a scientific poll then I could make any issue paliable to you. Even in your own example and link the climatologist and those who had written about the subject in scientific journals were overwhelmingly in the opinion that man was making an impact on his environment. Also that the temperature has risen.”
    I have a problem with the characterization of ’cause and effect’. To make my point I’ll tell you a story: years ago out West there were quite a few from Washington and California who retired into Arizona. After a while they got tired of the hot weather and sand blowing in their faces, so they all (no, not actually every one of them, but enough to make a difference) went to Home Depot and bought the materials to plant a lawn in their front yards. After a few years of this, THE CLIMATE CHANGED IN THEIR TOWN! It actually got humid during the day, and there was dew on the grass in the morning. Then they wished it was dusty and hot again (after all, that was the reason to retire there in the first place). I moved away and have lost what transpired, but I expect that the humidity stayed. One thing I do know is that the humidity stays local to that town. It dissipates quickly into the desert.
    Here are my points: (of course there are some exceptions)
    1. Mankind can and does change climates everywhere they reside. Hippies in the 60’s liked to point to how a flapping butterfly on the other side of the world changes airflow everywhere it is connected (even remotely).
    2. Mankind has a blatant disregard for his fellow beings. Why else would companies foul the air and water.
    3. Mankind cares not what he leaves for the next generation. He is only in it for himself.
    4. Getting back to your point above, political pols (even of scientists) are onlt relevant to opinions. They cannot be used as data used in a scientific exercise (even if it is a ‘scientific poll’).
    5. Global temperatures are increasing. That has been true ever since the last Ice Age.
    6. Mankind is having an influence on local weather. Read my little story above, which is a true personal story.
    I am desperately trying to understand the AGW theory. I have yet to find the proof that #6 is causing #5. If you have a link to a scientific study that shows the cause and effect, please pass it along. Climate models (I have done a few myself when I was working as an Environmental Engineer) are interesting, but can never be used as proof. For proof, I need to measure some real life things. Design an experiment that I can do.
    The burden is always on the ‘new’ theory to replace the current one. I have not seen the proof yet, so I’ll stick to the observations that got me here: current weather is a natural phenominon, modified slightly by human activity.

  48. fadedvision says:
    June 21, 2011 at 2:27 pm
    I’m going to start by laughing. I read your article and it really did nothing but underline my main point. People who know about the climate had different opinions than the scientists that aren’t specialized in the subject(I’m not even sure why they are asked).

    First off, it is neither “my article” nor is it an article. It is someone else’s analysis of a fraudulent poll. Why Fraud? The perpetrators may not have been attempting to commit fraud, but those who use it for their own purposes are committing fraud (like you and CNN). Simply put, as you appear to agree, it is no more relevant than the Miss USA Beauty pagent. For that is all it is. Second, you have no idea how many of the 7k scientists that did not respond are as qualified or more qualified than the 77 that did. Like any internet poll (and this one is simply that), those with a stake in the issue are more likely to respond that those who have no stake (or who are making better use of their time than preening for peacocks).
    So the poll again does not prove your point. It does nothing other than simply show you that there are lies, damn lies and statistics (not the science, just polls like this).

    Your essentially making this statement phil. You believe the people who believe the same way that already did before you even looked into the subject

    You do have a reading comprehension problem. I made no statement. I showed you that your “97%” figure was totally bogus. Indeed, all I did was criticize the incorrect usage of that figure (as you used it) and point you to clarification of where it came from. The rest of your statements are simply your assumptions that have no bearing in the facts presented.

    You want me to man up and admit climate change isn’t real?

    let’s start by you showing me where I asked you this or even insinuated this. Before you waste my time (and possibly yours), I willl state I never asked you to admit anything about climate change. I did tell you to man up and admit the 97% figure was fraudulent. Something you have tried to weasel out of doing, but very poorly I might add. Again, reading comprehension. Do not try to put up a straw man and claim it is mine. My words speak for themselves. So unless you are ESL, your actions are inexcusable.
    I will say you got one thing right: Look, I’m not an expert on scientists. I am just a loud mouth a hole and another wrong who actually listens to scientists. The latter because you apparently only listen to SOME scientists, but you may well represent them since some of them are like you in not understanding what the science of statistics is all about.
    I on the other hand, listen to them all. I then weigh evidence and evaluate it and come to my own conclusions. So I do know about scientific polls (and the one you and CNN quoted is NOT one). If you believe that is a scientific poll, then I dare say it is you that is totally clueless on what science, statistics, and statistical polls are all about. Or how to recognize them when you see them. For that, I am sorry for you.

  49. fadedvision says:
    June 21, 2011 at 2:27 pm
    I’m going to start by laughing. I read your article and it really did nothing but underline my main point. People who know about the climate had different opinions than the scientists that aren’t specialized in the subject(I’m not even sure why they are asked).

    First. let us clarify 2 things. 1 – it is not MY article, and second it is not an article. It is an analysis of a bogus number created out of virtually thin air. Laugh all you want, but then the laugh would be on you.

    Your essentially making this statement phil.

    No, I am making no such statement. I merely pointed out to you that your quick googling of the subject found a bad source for information. CNN may be a news site, but apparently they do not report it very well since they did no research on the number nor have they printed a retraction once the analysis of the fake poll was done. My statement was that your 97% figure was bogus. That is ALL I said. Period.
    But I will say that your contention about qualifications are totally bogus as well. Unless you can state – unequivocally – the qualifications of the 7k scientists that did not respond. Unless you can state that, anything else you say about the 77 is worthless.

    Also, apparently you do not understand how scientific polls work by having a vote on a website that is devoted to tricking people into not listening to the experts.

    You are incorrect. Nor do you understand anything apparently. As long as you know what a scientific poll versus an Internet poll is, how can it trick anyone? I see Internet polls all the time, and never have I seen any of them say they were scientific. This poll is an Internet poll, yet others have used it and claimed it scientific. The purpose of Internet polls is not to “trick”, but merely to allow readers to vent. And if you read the fine print, that is all they say. Show me where ANY Internet poll has been used authoritatively? I am sure you can find an example or 2 (like the one you quoted), but for the most part, other than reading them on the site, you will find them no where else.

    You want me to man up and admit climate change isn’t real?

    Again, reading comprehension. I never stated, or even insinuated any such thing. Your attempt to create a strawman and then to debunk it is pathetic. And very bad manners on any forum. If you want to debate me, debate what I write, not what you want me to write.
    And while you get some things right – Look, I’m not an expert on scientists. I am just a loud mouth a hole – you still get things wrong in the same sentence – who actually listens to scientists. – No you only listen to SOME scientists.

  50. fadedvision says: @ June 20, 8:52
    “I came here because I feel that you guys are winning the argument and with 3% of the climatologist on your side I wonder how that can be.”
    This is very interesting fadedvision that you have done two things. 1) That you managed to come here….. and 2) you “acknowledge” that “you guys” are winning the argument.
    This is can be possibly explained because it was pointed out your statistics are terribly flawed and the science record plus behavior of the climatologists is equally suspect. There is abundance of behavior recorded to show how a minority of credentialed climatologists (you so highly regard) have managed to “hijack” the scientific process, with major help from Main Stream Media (MSM) and have in some instances translated this AGW belief into terrible government action and policy. You can’t fool all the people all the time fadedvision. Most people here are no fools.
    The next thing you need to pay attention to is what that means if their proposed alarmist (tipping point) policies are successfully implemented with regard to the effect on the world and likely scenarios. This thread started because of a recent report that the increases in hurricane activity may be attributed to better detection methods. This is in direct confrontation of a lot of reports that AGW is going to cause extreme weather and hurricane activity is of course one of them. This current report made by reputable scientists, debunks or challenges a popular claim by some climatologists, the MSM, and folks like Al Gore. It is a small piece of the puzzle, but science builds on such reports and will never be the final word.
    You see on one popular side, the MSM will report only that press releases of some obscure climatologist who claims the opposite and fadedvision, I’m confident you will only see the press release and base your information on that single point. Now, back at the Ranch, (Here) we are getting the “complete” picture of both sides. You have been “spanked” a few times for prematurely making silly claims and hope by now you are prepared to adjust to the fact why perhaps “we” are “winning” the argument. Think most of us here are not interested in the process of the “jest” required to win the argument, but are outraged by bad statements, false claims, and bad science. You seem to think this is a numerical contest of science by consensus and your 97 % figure is just a silly fact you rely on. I suggest you do the following fairly soon:
    1 Do some reading on Climategate.
    2 Read the Hockey Stick Illusion.
    This will show you how the climate scientists behave you so highly regard, and may just start your journey into the “winning” camp where we actually celebrate scientists and their output. I have done both and am a better position to comment. The Oregon Project I referenced earlier is where noted scientists have previously journeyed and have rejected the thesis that catastrophic anthropogenic warming is to be likely encountered as laid out by the Kyoto protocol and the IPCC. That means a lot fadedvision and suggest you re-think your attitudes if possible.
    Think most of us here hope that you (and others especially lurkers) are in a mode to learn and perhaps be swayed in your thinking that perhaps what you have been fed previously with regard to Global Warming needs to be challenged. If what is reported here and the science makes sense, adopt it but don’t look for scoring of science to resemble the numbers you get while playing professional sports like Hockey.

  51. While I’m waiting for a reply from faded, I am asking any of the rest of you to comment regarding the science position that models are just as good as actual measurements of the global weather system. I have not read the study yet, but today it was reported that all of life in earth’s oceans are on the brink of extinction!
    My question: is this another result of a model, or is this based on actual observation and measurement?

  52. I can’t argue against 3-4 people at once. I’m going to stop posting here.
    Thank you for the spirited debate and shame on you for your condescending and arrogant tone. I may be a loud mouth a hole but I cannot hold a candle to your collective hubris. It’s fine that you think your smart and I am a mainstream media sheep(which I am not) but the really sad thing is that you have such blind belief in something that you cannot prove yourselves. You rip on polls data(as I am sure you are all experts on polls), tell people that they just aren’t smart enough to comprehend the bold(and rediculous) claims that you make, and worst of all you try to character assasinate hard working scientists who are too busy doing their job to come here and try and persuad the unpersuadable.
    Take pride in muddying the water on a subject that nearly every single expert in the field disagrees with you on. That is a fact and irresputable, nearly every expert in the field disagrees with you and that’s not spin, its reality.
    Please do me a favor though. Do what you do w/ climate change. In the same way that you completely ignore the experts and follow the demigogues blindly in all instances(people who know very little about climate change in general. THEY ARE LOUD THOUGH). Next time something serious happens in your life, instead of going to an expert, go to someone who knows very little about the subject and ask them what you should do.
    If your car breaks, go to your doctor and ask him how to fix it. If you break your arm, go ask the mechanic if he knows how to make a brace. When you want to know the facts about climate change. Ask a GEOLOGIST! Perhaps a weatherman or a high school life science teacher. Don’t ask the people who actually know about this subject.
    I bid you all farewell, until the next time I feel like poking a stick in the hornets nest.
    P.S. You all make your argument very well and you are true wordsmiths. I give you that complement and I only wonder how well you would do if you actually had the facts on your side. I would fear that debate. Ah well, like my pappy used to say. You can’t polish a turd. Keep trying though, it’s fun to watch.
    ))))Just remember what ol’ Jack Burton does when the earth quakes, and the poison arrows fall from the sky, and the pillars of Heaven shake. Yeah, Jack Burton just looks that big ol’ storm right square in the eye and he says, “Give me your best shot, pal. I can take it.”((((

  53. ****sigh********
    fadedvision, I’ll repeat for you the wisdom of trusting the so-called current experts where in 1888 the procedure to fix a lot of your health ills was blood-letting. If you can’t see the simple analogy, how it so appropriately relates to today, and what we are trying to passionately indicate to you, guess we have failed and it is not our fault. If you don’t wish to be convinced and perhaps enlightened, so be it- and I hope you are happy in your state. You have been given some homework assignments and hope you take to the lessons. That will require some work however. Passing is optional.
    You mentioned the Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, and believe me, it fits your situation precisely where you are trapped sitting on the chair- in the year 1888, with the comfort of listening to the projected reality from the so-called crop of your trusted self appointed experts behind you. Unfortunately you can’t recognize it for what it is, and where you sit. We have escaped out of the cave, fadedvision, seen the reality, and you won’t listen to what is being reported back. Sad, really sad.
    Time will tell who has facts and good science on their side. We are not trying to polish poo, but it is unfortunate you can’t recognize when you are eating and consuming the same. We are trying to educate you (and unfortunately probably failed) a bit to the point where perhaps you can detect when things don’t pass the “smell test”. Eating is optional.

  54. fadedvision says:
    June 22, 2011 at 3:57 pm
    I can’t argue against 3-4 people at once. I’m going to stop posting here.

    You picked the fights. I pointed out a problem with your post. One issue, which you then tried to defend (when there was no defense). My rebuttals and points have all been on that problem. I have not checked everyone else’s posts, but it seems you brought it upon yourself. Unfortunately, you are now attempting to play the victim and skulk away without admitting defeat. That is your perogative, but no one is fooled.

  55. Wrong Phil, I’m declaring VICTORY as I walk away w/ my chin up. 🙂
    Billy V thinks science should be blamed for blood letting? LOL dude, It’s not 1888. It’s 2011 and we can almost grow whole human organs now. We are literally at the tip top of scientific research. With stem scell research and the advanced technologies we have today science is at it’s peak and you need to wake up to that reality. It has grown exponentially over the past oh 120 years since blood letting was last practiced and you apparentely stopped listening to them. For the record, I never defeded 120 year old science(laughing). In all honesty, to attack science for blood letting is such a shallow and weak argument that it really shows the flaw of your case against science. Whenever you have to go that far back just to find embarassing theories then your case should probably be re-evaluated.
    Jeffrey: you deserve a reply.
    1. Mankind can and does change climates everywhere they reside. Hippies in the 60′s liked to point to how a flapping butterfly on the other side of the world changes airflow everywhere it is connected (even remotely).
    A) Yes, to what extent seems to be the burning question on most of our minds.
    2. Mankind has a blatant disregard for his fellow beings. Why else would companies foul the air and water.
    A) That’s one theory. The other theory is that people are actually inherently good.(Which I subscribe to) Obviously the view of the founders of the United States too, I doubt they would give control of a country to inherently flawed people. I believe that foul air and water only effects a few people directely. Most of the pollution effects us indirectly and can obscured very easily by the company and their PR teams.
    3. Mankind cares not what he leaves for the next generation. He is only in it for himself.
    A) Some do, some don’t. You cannot simply paint all people w/ a broad brush. You did that in the last question. I will say most people are pretty stupid though.
    4. Getting back to your point above, political pols (even of scientists) are onlt relevant to opinions. They cannot be used as data used in a scientific exercise (even if it is a ‘scientific poll’).
    A) Yeah, polls only judge opinion. Wrong or right. Though, if I were to wonder where and how I should travel Europe. I would look at opinions from travel agents as experts in the field. That is why I made my point about climatologist in the poll. Their opinions are really the only ones that matter on the subject imo.
    5. Global temperatures are increasing. That has been true ever since the last Ice Age.
    A) True, how rapidly over time? Probably the most important indicator.
    6. Mankind is having an influence on local weather. Read my little story above, which is a true personal story.
    A) Good story, yeah I understand that. It’s also usually about 5-10 degrees hotter in cities than in rural areas because of all the concrete. It’s humid in the rain forest because of all the foliage and it’s dry in the desert because of the lack there of… There are a lot of humans and we are everywhere, you can see how that might effect an ecosystem on a larger scale. Similarly to your example.

  56. fadedvision says:
    June 24, 2011 at 12:39 pm
    Wrong Phil, I’m declaring VICTORY as I walk away w/ my chin up. 🙂

    Delusions do not become you. You lost. Man up and admit it. As of now, you just appear to be a weaseling Quisling

  57. Subjective view Phil. If you tell me to man up again, I’m going to buy a horse and move to Wyoming and become a cowboy.
    I had to google Quisling.
    Defined: A traitor who serves as the puppet of the enemy occupying his or her country.
    Wow, that’s pretty hardcore. I’ll have you know my family has lived in the United States since before there was a United States. My lineage dates back to the earliest settlers in this country and I take pride in that. I’m a proud patriot who just happens to be a little bit more balanced and objective than the likes of an internet tough guy named PhilJordan. Your next post better be an apology. Otherwise, don’t expect a response to your ignorant name calling.
    Jack Burton quote: “May the wings of liberty never lose a feather”

  58. fadedvision, sorry if you could not grasp my simple allegory (and others) about the state of medical SCIENCE in 1888. Let me try to explain it a bit better if I may. I acknowledge that today we are much better equipped with science and methods; that is not the contention. We benefit today from the quest of knowledge and the results of good proven science.
    Please for the sake of the allegory you seemed to miss, and try to grasp that in 1888 medical SCIENCE said that blood-letting was a recognized treatment for many diseases. Hope you knew that as it is crucial for the argument. I assumed you did and perhaps I was wrong? Pretend anyway for the moment we are back in the year 1888. In fact, let’s say 97% of scientists said so- at that time. (It’s 1888 remember, and we know nothing about the future) Had we been in existence and perhaps been engaged in conversation at the local feed-store, we could have had the exact same discussion about the effect of blood-letting as a great treatment. If you were on the side of the 97 percentile argument supporting the current science consensus, and “we” the other 3 percenter’s, said- not so fast buster, I don’t think so. You would have railed to the folks in the store and perhaps clear out to the street as well, how medical science and the treatments (solutions) must be trusted and we all should follow the 97% consensus. Furthermore, shame on us because we are “deniers”, hate science etc. ad nauseum. Do you “get” now the allegory?
    Please understand how science works; new theories emerge, old ones fade because a lot of new information (correct this time) is found, withstands examination and scrutiny of other competent scientists within and out of the specific field. It is an on-going process and history of science has many records of total failure of research that was wrong, dead wrong.
    The goal of science is not to develop agreement, but to pursue truth that fits long standing agreement on what is good science. A notorious few (listed by this Blog) of the current crop of climatologists have, and are currently “bending” the generally accepted scientific protocols that require a few challenges. This Blog (and others) is questioning in both a serious and humorous way, their failings, and quite successfully I may add. You need to read more, do some homework beyond reading just your own and other’s limited postings here (mine included). Listen and observe before you offer your untenable arguments.
    This thread is going a bit off topic and I have said my piece. I’m not interested in winning arguments but hoped to educate some folks that need it. If you fail to do your homework and won’t just observe for a while to see what constitutes good science, I sincerely hope you don’t participate in policy (vote) because your current ability to grasp things based on your current state of knowledge is terribly skewed from reality.
    Ignorance is often bliss, and I’m sure you are very happy.
    I’m sure you would be happier if you got your truck back.

  59. faded, I thought you left….I do have some comments on your reply:
    Jeffrey: you deserve a reply.
    1. Mankind can and does change climates everywhere they reside. Hippies in the 60′s liked to point to how a flapping butterfly on the other side of the world changes airflow everywhere it is connected (even remotely).
    A) Yes, to what extent seems to be the burning question on most of our minds.
    Reply: SINCE THE IPCC IS ONLY CHARGED IN GATHERING IN ALL THE RESEARCH THAT SUPPORTS AGW, THAT IS WHAT THEY HAVE DONE. EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY IS EXCLUDED. THE RESULT IS THAT THE “MAIN VIEW” THAT GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE IS PRIMARILY DRIVEN BY NATURAL CAUSES REMAINS UNTIL THERE IS ENOUGH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. I HAVE BEEN SEARCHING FOR THE EVIDENCE AND HAVE YET TO FIND IT. SO, I SAY, AGW IS A SMALL CONTRIBUTOR.
    2. Mankind has a blatant disregard for his fellow beings. Why else would companies foul the air and water.
    A) That’s one theory. The other theory is that people are actually inherently good.(Which I subscribe to) Obviously the view of the founders of the United States too, I doubt they would give control of a country to inherently flawed people. I believe that foul air and water only effects a few people directely. Most of the pollution effects us indirectly and can obscured very easily by the company and their PR teams.
    Reply: I HAVE A MULTITUDE OF PERSONAL EXAMPLES FROM THE EARLY DAYS OF THE CLEAN WATER AND CLEAN AIR ACTS FROM THE 70’S. THE MAIN REASON: “IT WOULD BE COST PROHIBITIVE TO CLEAN UP MORE THAN OUR ALOWANCE”. THEY KNEW IT WAS DAMAGING TO THE PLANET, BUT THEY HAD A PERMIT TO DO IT.
    3. Mankind cares not what he leaves for the next generation. He is only in it for himself.
    A) Some do, some don’t. You cannot simply paint all people w/ a broad brush. You did that in the last question. I will say most people are pretty stupid though.
    Reply: ONE (OF MANY) EXAMPLES: THE HUDSON RIVER (NY) IS LOADED WITH PCB’S BECAUSE GENERAL ELECTRIC WOULD NOT CLEAN THEM UP UNTIL FORCED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DO IT. EVEN THEN, THEY ONLY DO SO MUCH PER YEAR — BECAUSE OF THE COST.
    4. Getting back to your point above, political pols (even of scientists) are onlt relevant to opinions. They cannot be used as data used in a scientific exercise (even if it is a ‘scientific poll’).
    A) Yeah, polls only judge opinion. Wrong or right. Though, if I were to wonder where and how I should travel Europe. I would look at opinions from travel agents as experts in the field. That is why I made my point about climatologist in the poll. Their opinions are really the only ones that matter on the subject imo.
    Reply: SORRY, YOUR EXAMPLE HAS ABSOLUTELY NO RESEMBLANCE TO A SCIENTIFIC QUESTION. IN SCIENCE WE NEED POSTULATION, EXPERIMENT OR OBSERVATION OF THE ACTUAL PROCESS IN QUESTION, CONCLUSION, THEORY, DISSEMINATION OF ALL PERTINENT INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO ALL OTHER INTERESTED SCIENTISTS, REPLICATION AND COMMENT. POLLS ONLY HAVE RELEVANCE IN POLITICS – NOT SCIENCE.
    5. Global temperatures are increasing. That has been true ever since the last Ice Age.
    A) True, how rapidly over time? Probably the most important indicator.
    Reply: WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING THE EXTENT OF NATURAL CAUSES (LIKE WATER VAPOR, FOR INSTANCE), THE IPCC HAS DISMISSED THEM AS A SIGNIFICANT SOURCE, AND HAS STATED THAT CO2 (~1.5 DEGREE INCREASE IN THE NEXT 100 YEARS) IS THE MAIN CULPRIT
    6. Mankind is having an influence on local weather. Read my little story above, which is a true personal story.
    A) Good story, yeah I understand that. It’s also usually about 5-10 degrees hotter in cities than in rural areas because of all the concrete. It’s humid in the rain forest because of all the foliage and it’s dry in the desert because of the lack there of… There are a lot of humans and we are everywhere, you can see how that might effect an ecosystem on a larger scale. Similarly to your example.
    Reply: YOU LOST MY NUANCE, THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE WAS THAT HUMANS DO CONTRIBUTE TO CHANGES IN WEATHER, BUT IT IS LOCAL IN ITS IMPACT. EVEN “GLOBAL WARMING” IS HEAVILY WEIGHTED TO THE NORTHERN LATITUDES AND THEN MOSTLY ON LAND SURFACES, EVEN THOUGH THE OCEANS COMPRISE 70% OF THE EARTH’S SURFACE.
    Really, all this back and forth was in response to your assertion:
    “If that is your idea of a scientific poll then I could make any issue paliable to you. Even in your own example and link the climatologist and those who had written about the subject in scientific journals were overwhelmingly in the opinion that man was making an impact on his environment. Also that the temperature has risen.”
    IT IS THE LINK BETWEEN MAN’S IMPACT AND RISING TEMPERATURES THAT I AM QUESTIONING…IF YOU HAVE A LINK TO A SCIENTIFIC STUDY THAT LINKS THE TWO, PLEASE SEND IT TO ME. ONE THING IS THAT IT CANNOT BE A COMPUTER STUDY, SINCE I AM LOOKING FOR SOMETHING REAL…….DO YOU HAVE ONE???????

  60. Thanks for the warning dbs, but in reality, I don’t know what the official D-word is? ( I am quite naive sometimes ) I can think of some dirty words and agree they are not necessary and quite unacceptable in this forum and contribute nothing except debasing the discussion ongoing. Wanted to know what the reply was from fadedvision if he had anything substantial. Perhaps he can “modify” his response and re-submit?

  61. Oh, and Jeffery please, resist the need to shout. We should be listening to each other at a normal volume. It’s the ideas that can shout, if they make sense.

  62. c’mon faded, can you please respond to me? Send me the link that joins increasing coal CO2 in the atmosphere with increasing temperatures at harmful levels..
    I also have a problem finding a study linking increased coal CO2 in the atmosphere causing ocean acidification.
    If ibcreased coal CO2 causes increased temperatures; while increased temperatures of the atmosphere also causes increased temperatures of the ocean surface; and increased coal CO2 in the ocean causes acids to form, lowering the ph; why is it that when water warms, it releases CO2 that was heretofore captured in the water?
    I would think that increased water temperatures would cause the water chemistry ph to rise, not fall. But, this was back in high school…..I may have it backward.
    lol

  63. I’m rather glad I missed this “Conversation”.
    @Jeffrey Eric Grant: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Very few people dispute this, neither sceptics or AGW believers. The argument isn’t about whether increasing CO2 can warm the planet, but about the extent of that warming, and whether other forcings (positive and negative) accentuate or reduce the effect. There are plenty of studies covering this topic, but this might be the one you seek: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
    Note: I am sceptical about the magnitude of warming claimed in Hansen el al 2005, mainly based upon the apparent levelling off of global temperature for the past 13 years at a time when CO2 is still increasing, but I have no training in this area so my opinion really doesn’t count.
    @faded: the word was probably “denier”. It’s not only offensive, it also happens to be inaccurate.

  64. Jeff, I’m not a scientists and I don’t research climate change anymore. I don’t pretend to be a climatologist. I was just pointing out that your opinion is the opposite of the experts. When it comes to a very complex science such as the climate and man’s impact on the climate I refer you to someone specialized in the subject and defer you away from trying to figure it out all by yourself. 🙂
    This has been my point the entire conversation, all of my points have said this. I wonder if you guys even read my posts sometimes. I personally don’t read through all of yours as I am one person arguing against about 5 people. You are 1 person, of 5, arguing against 1. At least you can give me the respect to at least read through my argument and argue against that. Instead it seems you are content with just ignoring my posts and making your own points about your own ideological argument. That’s fine, I don’t intend on trying to beat down a straw man that someone much smarter than me has already beaten down.
    Sorry, Derek. The scientific community that I trust has already come to a concuslion. The IPCC is the foremost authority on climate change and they have come to their conclusion. I actually have read their report.(forgive my prior statement about not knowing the science). I sort of understand the science and it comes down to trust. I actually do trust the IPCC, sorry I know that will be unpopular. Their report is pretty conclusive and this issue isn’t even an issue in any other country except the United States. My real concern is why the American public is the only one that denies the science. That is why I say [******], we stand as an outlier. I could point to the huge oil lobby in this country and unfettered access to politicians. The billions of dollars spent on comercials that do nothing except talk about how great oil companies can be. I wonder why they would spend so much money doing PR for something that has no effect on the environment. I wonder.
    IF YOU REPLY TO ME PLEASE READ MY POST 1st! OTHERWISE YOU WILL BE IGNORED! THANKS!
    [Please watch your language. Robt]

  65. fadedvision, I presume there is no hope of altering your outlook as your mind has been made-up by the consensus proffered by the IPCC and that is fine. That is the position of many religious fanatics and you just have faith in their wisdom. You seem to think that contrary views are simply manifested by the influence of “big oil”, and that shows unfortunately how little you really have investigated into this whole proposition. I guess you secretly have some grudge against corporations, their influence, their impact and their basic presence you fear. That reveals something of your core philosophy and I now recognize that is not likely to be altered by any rational argument. You have convinced yourself that the so called “wisdom” offered by the current crop of scientists engaged in studying “climate change” always trump any science to the contrary.
    Since you have taken the position: “The scientific community that I trust has already come to a concuslion.” You leave little “wiggle room” to perhaps for listening to any arguments listed here in this blog, and are resorted to save and defend your position by poking everyone with sharp pointed sticks to keep them away since you can’t offer any other rationale. You will find you will be quite busy doing that because there are a number of noted scientists posting here. Trust should be earned by history and examining the actions of the whole community of climate scientists. Their record is abysmal.
    My position has always been to get you to listen a while, observe some of the really well written arguments here in this Blog against the “warmists” , hold your conclusions for a while, and resist the need to defend what eventually will be proven as a giant error in science. Can’t convince you that in the history of science, it has been terribly wrong before in some notable incidents. The problem today is that government policy is too much entwined in the science and any action taken will result in a substantial change in your lifestyle for the worse, that you can’t see or envision. So I hope you wander off happy in your bliss. I caution others to not resort to name calling or other demeaning tactics to perhaps alter fadedvision’s views since it is not going to happen and we should not attack personalities but only bad ideas.Name calling just shows you have lost the argument. I was hoping that fadedvision would perhaps see (well demonstrated here) that there is not the “solid front” of science supporting his position and the IPCC.
    While I’m not engaged in climate science, I do have enough credentials I feel that allow me to judge the credibility of both sides of the argument and find the so called “minority” position more acceptable because I managed to separate myself from the religious nature of the thrust, and examine the atrocious behavior by the current crop of climate scientists. It does not bother me to call me names, as I am very comfortable with being skeptical of the so-called current science of global warming. The catastrophic scenarios you and folks like Al Gore subscribe to just don’t hold any truth when closely examined. I do not deny any of the science offered by the climate scientists and celebrate any new reports. But they must adhere to the standards of past scientific principles and that fadedvision, is where you need to be more critical. It’s just not so that a lot of the conclusions by the current crop of scientists and their findings will withstand the scrutiny of history. Trust me on that.
    Just remember extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So far is it missing. It is the job of the climate scientists to provide that proof and all they can do is offer their computer models which are not any proof in any scientific field. Unfortunately you fall for that level of proof and the acceptance of consensus as demonstrating same..

  66. faded, Derek: Sorry, I am left to figure this out for myself! This is not ideological for me, since I have a technical degree and have worked for maany years as an Environmental Engineer, I do have some familiarity with the issue — I remember when they started this in the 60’s; only problem then was they were talking about the coming ice age! .I have asked for the “proof” for a while now. I am fully aware of the theory of AGW — I dream about it at night. I have asked at the very top of the food chain — Gavin and Mike Mann would not help, and they should have been able to. I was offered help from Roy Spencer — but, of course, although he has a government grant for his work on satellite measurements, he is not part of the AGW clique. What I believe is happening doesn’t matter….I am looking for some measurement that supports the AGW conclusion that the increased temperatures we see are “caused” by the rising CO2, which we measure in Hawaii. Until I get it, I will hold onto the current theory.
    And, BTW, the IPCC is not an “authority” on the subject as they are a political (absolutely non-swcientific) entity. They were given the mission to compile research about AGW. So, I think they are a reference source for this side of ther discussion. For the other side I use the NIPCC’s data and references.
    The US is not the “only” country that questions the science — read a little about how China and Russia regard the AGW “science”! I also follow The Guardian (England) and find that they have now rejected Kyoto; they are the only country that tried to adhere to their Kyoto commitment. Right now Australia is having a huge revolt because of the carbon tax increases just proposed.
    I wish we could discuss adaption measures for the increasing temps. At leat then we would be doing something constructive (afer all I am an Engineer). This AGW political stuff is starting to get real old.
    Derek, I too think CO2 has a limited role in the temperature rise. Actual theory limits it to about a 2 degree rise by the end of this century. Other “positive reinforcements” add all the rest of the increase. However, very little is known about the role of water in the system. They need to fully investigate this. Thanks for the link. I will follow it later this week when I have some time.
    BillyV – thanks for your post! I do with the AGW crowd would debate the science. oh, BTW, Algore has now moved on — he is touting limited populations world-wide. I wolder how he will achieve his goal?

  67. I’m confused Billy. You do or don’t believe man is adding to a change in temperature? You do or don’t believe that this is good or bad? You do or don’t believe the top scientists specialized in this subject?(and they are the top climatologist in the world)
    BillyV:fadedvision, “I presume there is no hope of altering your outlook as your mind has been made-up by the consensus proffered by the IPCC and that is fine. That is the position of many religious fanatics and you just have faith in their wisdom.”
    It is nothing like religious fanatics, as religious fanatics have faith based upon lack of evidence. I have faith based upon evidence in this case. It’s actually the opposite of fanataics in every single way. 🙂
    BillV: “You seem to think that contrary views are simply manifested by the influence of “big oil”, and that shows unfortunately how little you really have investigated into this whole proposition. I guess you secretly have some grudge against corporations, their influence, their impact and their basic presence you fear.”
    I do fear corporate influence because I know history. Perhaps a history lesson about WW2 might jog your memory and bring you some fear of corporations also. Facism is fueled by large corporations, Mussolini 1st named facism “corporatism”(translated). Essentially this country was founded whenever the Boston Tea Party started by attacking the East India Trade company which was trying to gain a monopoly on the tea sales in the colonies. This company was owned by the King of England, (worth mentioning). If you aren’t scared of large multinational corporations then you need to be, they have altered public opinion throughout our history and they certainly have the money to do so now. It’s ok if you are not as paranoid as me about them but please grant me that they seek to gain profit. That is their main goal, changing public opinion is part of that money making scheme, I am sure that they have no motive outside revenue. IE-they are not evil.
    Might I ask why you think that you should be able to know more than the collective acuman of the IPCC? Why should I trust your opinion? Are you a high level biologist or something along those lines?
    I would also say that I did not curse in that last post. I have no idea what they bleeped out or why they said that. I was very careful not to curse. My posts go through moderation before posting. Because I used the “D” word which I still haven’t been notified what exactly the “d” word is [Note: Read the site Policy. ~dbs, mod.] and don’t remember exactly what I say after my rant is over. I am saving every post from now on so that I might go back and look at exactly what has been taken out. I’m fairly sure that I am unfairly being targeted as the only person on this entire blog who actually believes climate change on this blog. Moderator, if you are so confident in your censorship then allow me to know which words you have altered.
    On a side note, everyone on this page is absolutely nuts. You guys seriously pat yourselves on the back for the basis of your remarks and arguments but in the end. You are all wrong and your drinking kool-aide from the same source. Literally the North Pole could completely be gone and you blind demigogues will simply say “Thats just the natural cycle” or some other high minded and obscured view.
    Jeffrey Grant, you just providede a perfect example of why I can’t figure you people out at all! You say China doesn’t believe in climate change? Where on earth did you come up w/ that information? China doesn’t debate this issue as they are communist and have no freedom of speech. They simply listen to their scientists who(obviously) know what the rest of the world already knows. The science is not debatable at this point. How many articles would you like me to post about China talking about climate change? Here is one, I hope that’s enough.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8268077.stm
    Russia happens to have the largest oil reserve in the world sitting underneath of Siberia. It happens to be too cold to drill there now. I wonder why, if at all, Russia would have a vested interest in Siberia thawing out from a rise in temperature. Anyone? Buehler? Anyone?
    Jeffrey, Kyoto Protocol was pretty stupid. I admit that much. Because Kyoto was unfairly drafted does not mean that climate change isn’t real. It was a poorly constructed attempt to do something smart. It didn’t work for good reason. People did not sign on to it because it climate change isn’t real. They didn’t sign up for it because it was constructed to harm heavily industrialized nations among many other major drawbacks. I am not pro Kyoto Protocol.
    I will remind you that Philjordan called me a traitor to my country and someone who tries to destroy a his country from the inside earlier in this thread and there was nothing done about this. I have to assume that I am ok to call people traitors and this would fit the standard of not name calling or cursing. Although worse than cursing imo.
    I mean, it says a lot that I come on here as someone w/ a different opinion than you people. That’s ok, people have different opinions. It speaks volumes that I could come on here and start up a healthy debate. Then the moderator starts previewing all my posts before they make it to the board? He starts editing out parts of them because of my cursing? That he has not told me what words I used. The truth is I haven’t cursed. If I have, I don’t recall it and he hasn’t told me what words were used. I think it tells a lot about this site that the only voice of descent on this whole thread is watched over like a secret police. In case I say something that might shatter your science denying minds. Give me my posting rights back and please disclose, at least to me through email, what words I said that deserve to have WHOLE POSTS edited out. I have had 3 posts edited now. If you can’t do that, I’ll let you guys go back to your own undignified 3rd grade Al Gore bashing and sciece denying. I’ll even leave you w/ a couple packets of kool-aide and we can talk about how we didn’t land on the moon or how dinosaurs never really existed next. Nice sheltered house you guys live in, moderator had to come in and stop me from pounding on you. That tells me a lot about how well your arguments were going.
    Last point Jeffrey, about the IPCC being some political body. Want to know what the IPCC really is? From IPCC website –
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. The UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC.
    The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.
    Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and expertise. The Secretariat coordinates all the IPCC work and liaises with Governments. It is supported by WMO and UNEP and hosted at WMO headquarters in Geneva.
    The IPCC is an intergovernmental body. It is open to all member countries of the United Nations (UN) and WMO. Currently 194 countries are members of the IPCC. Governments participate in the review process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau Members, including the Chair, are also elected during the plenary Sessions.
    Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.
    Please, don’t let me interupt your Rush Limbaugh in the evening.

  68. faded, wow.
    Thanks for the post.
    We will never agree, mainly because we are talking about different things….
    It was due to China that the Coperhagen agreement fell apart. China is commissioning one new coal-fired electric generating plant each week; this while the US is starting to dismantle theirs.
    If the Russians can’t drill through permafrost, then they should not be in the oil business. They do export a lot of natural gas, though.
    The USA is sitting on the largest cache of energy in the world. This does not count “renewables”. However, we are not exploiting this energy reserve fast enough because of uncertainty in the science. It seems our government would rather continue to spemd $Billions every year importing the energy we need.
    However, I would rather understand the science. I am stuck on just how increased CO2 actually increases atmospheric temperatures beyond their “greenhouse” amount (approx 2 degrees C over the next 100 years). Ideally, I would observe an actual debate of the scientific issues that was conducted on-line or on a stage somewhere. But, alas, no debate. So, I must raise my questions directly to the scientists, or on a group on-line, like this one. This is slow, tedious work, so I’ll be at it for quite a while.
    I use the IPCC’s reports as the leader to the science upon which the reports are based. There are plenty of references to the AGW side of the debate; while very little reference to a contrarian study. Why is that? I prefer to think that it is a matter of funding — governments’ funding is lopsided. Fully 10 times as much government research grants are going to the AGW side than with contrarian redearch. Even during this terrible economy. plenty of research money went to the AGW scientists – both inside the US as well as outside the US.
    So, since AGW theory has been with us since the late 60’s, I am starting to look at their forecasts to get a sense of how robust and accurate they are. Sorry to say, I am not impressed. So now, I am looking into why that is. Why me? Because I cannot do the research and I am getting very little help with my best question: “why?”
    Troubling, huh? I don’t have the faith, so I need the ‘proof’. Don’t forget, we are discussing why there has been a surge in Atlantic hurricanes.
    oh, BTW, every one of my posts goes through the same critique yours go through before being posted

  69. I want to wish you the best of luck in your inquery into the CO2 emmissions. I really hope you find out what you are looking for.
    Can someone explain what AGW is an acronym for? W/o belittling me, thanks!

  70. To add to Jeffery’s comments. (I had to look it up my first encounter so don’t feel badly)
    Anthropogenic means- man caused or induced by humans. A more specific acronym is CAGW which means Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming or CAGW for short. The CAGW is basically what most of us here that have been poking you about. It’s the Chicken Little’s story about what is supposed to happen if we don’t act right now!!; as a Catastrophe will surely happen and soon too!!. You see both used widely, but CAGW usually is the reference term by skeptics.
    Remember faded, it is the job of all new theories (AGW) to provide proof (of man induced warming component) is happening and so far the proof is just too weak to convince a lot of scientists. We, the skeptics, don’t have to prove anything because we are not proposing a theory except to say the so-called climate scientists are doing bad science. We don’t deny the science provided at all, but are very skeptical of the many wild claims of some of the scientists and ask for better science and more convincing proof must be provided before policy decisions (Government laws) are made.
    Keep in mind we are still gradually warming from natural causes because if you look at history, there was an ice age um, 11,000 years ago and no one denies it is getting warmer. The whole simplified issue boils down to: how fast- and what component is Anthropogenic (man caused) influencing things?
    In this Blog, you will find a lot of contrary evidence that the CAGW science is terribly flawed and just not believable, Pay attention to what is written here and you just might see some bad science exposed that you might agree with.

  71. BillyV – thanks. Actually, I like CAGW better, because it is the C part that I rile against.
    I just had another thought — since we are talking about increased hurricane activity….hurricane strength is supposed to increase with increased sea temperatures. The sea temperature is increasing (and sea level rising) due to AGW. AGW is causing this through the increased CO2 in the atmosphere.
    So, why is global hurricane activity decreasing for the past six years? “activity” by any measure — total number of named storms, number of storms that reached hurricane strength, or “major” hurricanes.

Comments are closed.