The End of the World as We Know It.
CNN New Studies on Global Warming
CNN Higher Seas to Flood Cities
I am sure happy that I live in MN...
CNN New Studies on Global Warming
CNN Higher Seas to Flood Cities
I am sure happy that I live in MN...
50 comments:
No worries. "The Late Great Planet Earth" predicted that the world would end in 1988, and in 1988, Al Gore predicted the planet would be doomed in 20 years. Now they are saying 2112 or something like that. They won't get caught making predictions someone might be able to observe proving false.
My original Link was incorrect. I fixed it but here it is also.
Please note that no where do they say the world is coming to an end. They just say that many millions of people will die...
"If we surpass that mark, it has been estimated by scientists that life on our planet will change as we know it. Rising seas, mass extinctions, super droughts, increased wildfires, intense hurricanes, decreased crops and fresh water and the melting of the Arctic are expected.
The impact on human health would be profound. Rising temperatures and shifts in weather would lead to reduced air quality, food and water contamination, more infections carried by mosquitoes and ticks and stress on mental health, according to a recent report from the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health.
Currently, the World Health Organization estimates that 12.6 million people die globally due to pollution, extreme weather and climate-related disease. Climate change between 2030 and 2050 is expected to cause 250,000 additional global deaths, according to the WHO."
Ironically I am in Beijing this week and the air quality is pretty bad today.
They left out invasion by space aliens seeking a warmer planet. The simple scientific fact is that these doomsday scenarios are pure scientific hogwash. That drought in Minnesota hasn't materialized, but the one in California that was NOT supposed to happen did, but now is pretty much gone. Hurricanes have been almost entirely absent for the last ten years. Now you can say that is because temperatures haven't gone up as expected to drive that increase, but then you have to admit that temperatures haven't gone up as predicted, either. I would say your crystal ball is just a pretty rock.
As for the Arctic ice, Remember that in 1988 Al Gore predicted the Arctic would be ice-free by 2008. Not even close. The Watts Up website has a list of some 107 failed climate predictions, most of which share two common failings. That is, they assume that CO2 "controls" the climate, and that human CO2 controls total CO2, neither of which is true. They also conflate global warming and its "catastrophic" effects with manmade global warming, which completely hides the pseudoscientific hoax being perpetrated here.
"Hurricanes have been almost entirely absent for the last ten years."
Demonstrably false. Since you're lying, I'll assume you have an agenda and aren't interested in the truth.
Moose
Since 1970, there have been 10 years with four or more major hurricanes in the Atlantic basin. THREE of those have been in this decade...2010, 2011, and 2016, and there have been FOUR years in the last ten.
Moose
Jerry,
As I often say... Only time will tell...
Moose,
I assume Jerry means that they have not caused destruction like Katrina...
"I assume Jerry means that they have not caused destruction like Katrina..."
I assume Jerry has an agenda.
What was the prediction?
Moose
Facts are stubborn things. The "shortage" of hurricanes is real, and since we are told that global warming IS happening, and DOES cause more hurricanes, then it is quite obvious that this hurricane "drought" simply has not happened. Who are you going to believe, those eminent climate scientists, or your own lying eyes?
The record
The big concern is that because of all the people building where predictions are the seas are going to drown them out in just a few short years (Apparently the scientists have a credibility problem), the next hurricane will cause a lot more damage than previous. That does not mean they are more frequent or powerful, just more costly.
BTW, hurricane experts say warmer weather should cause FEWER hurricanes, not more.
Again, I will make the same offer. Tell me exactly what the "global temperature" WAS on this day in 2117, and I will agree you may have been right in your predictions made today. But I'm not going to place a big bet on a horse winning the Derby when that horse has not even been born yet.
Jerry,
We understand that you are looking for all the errors in the predictions.
If someone told you that you were going to be driving through an oak forest on a trip. You would later say they were wrong because there were some maples in the forest.
None of us are going to change the actions of the 7 billion people on earth, so we may as well be curious...
You've moved the goal posts. This article is discussing hurricanes that hit the United States. Typical American self-centeredness...if it doesn't affect the US, it didn't happen. There has been no hurricane drought.
Moose
Moose. Then why does the weather service report in blaring terms that we have a hurricane drought? Oh, I know, because "climate science" predicted otherwise?
And you all have the same problem you always have, the confabulation of "global warming" and "MANMADE global warming." So even if hurricanes HAD been increasing, as predicted, there would still be ZERO evidence that it was caused by burning fossil fuels. We should only do something about things we can do something about.
And Moose, you cannot say "there has been no hurricane drought" because it only occurred in the US. In the US, there WAS, and the models predicted otherwise. The models are WRONG, and must be so.
Even the IPCC says so.
Of course, a few weeks after your linked "hurricane drought" story was published, Matthew hit Florida as a Cat3, and did $10B in damage. And, Sandy wasn't even a hurricane anymore when it came ashore, but it did massive damage on the East Coast (70% in $ terms of what Katrina did). Ike, in 2008, was no picnic, either.
Regardless, arguing about the vaguries of hurricanes is really besides the point when there's all the other data (and real-life experiences like the fact that parts of Miami Beach are flooding daily due to higher sea levels) that point to things changing.
Sean, you have valid points, as usual, but in this case the context is missing. The number and intensity of hurricanes is the issue, not the damage created. On that score, the predictions are wrong. It may be a random variation (highly likely), but the fact they are not increasing as predicted says the underlying theory cannot be right. At least temperature predictions from the models come with a probable range and are based on real science, however flawed (which hurricane predictions are not). Unfortunately, the actual temperature observations are now below 95% of those probable outcomes.
And again, all this other "proof," like Miami beach flooding, cannot prove that we have a man-made global warming problem and, in this case, that we even have a NATURAL global warming problem. Miami Beach seems to be suffering from a land subsidence problem, not rising sea levels. "Things" are changing? I think that could be predicted pretty well.
Here is a disturbing prognostication...
Heat events will exceed human capability to survive in South Asia.
One of the authors was from MIT. I saw him on TV here and he noted the poor people who work in the fields will be most of the casualties. (ie no AC and a lot of exposure)
"The number and intensity of hurricanes is the issue, not the damage created. On that score, the predictions are wrong."
The number and intensity.
The number and intensity.
Figure it out yet? It's not about where the storms make landfall.
The number and intensity are as high or higher than most of the last century.
"And you all have the same problem you always have, the confabulation of "global warming" and "MANMADE global warming." So even if hurricanes HAD been increasing, as predicted, there would still be ZERO evidence that it was caused by burning fossil fuels. We should only do something about things we can do something about."
I haven't said anything about whether any of this is proof of any sort of global warming. I did, however, confront you on your made up facts, which you continue to try to support.
No single hurricane or hurricane season is proof for or against AGW. But you're arguing that your point is somehow proven.
Moose
Moose, you are doing a fabulous job of running in circles.
Climate scientists supposedly predict that the number and intensity of hurricanes will increase with global warming. The number and intensity of hurricanes hitting the US decreases; you say they have increased elsewhere to compensate, citing no evidence. Hurricane scientists say that warming would produce fewer hurricanes, so you can choose which scientists to believe. You can have warming taking place and causing fewer hurricanes, or you can have climate scientists be wrong on both counts.
You haven't said hurricanes are related to warming, true, but dozens of climate warming hysterics have said so repeatedly. Whether that comes from the climate "scientists" or the climate models is not relevant. It was said as justification for "doing something" about hurricanes, which we can do nothing about.
Finally, it is not my job to "prove my point," that future warming-- manmade or otherwise-- will be catastrophic because I do not pretend to know the future. It is up to those proposing a radical new policy to prove that this policy somehow addresses the problem it purports to solve. John was right, "wait and see" is really the best approach. Right now the betting is at 20:1 against the models being right.
John, once again you are worrying about something that, if it were completely natural (which it almost certainly is), we would be trying to directly address the issue-- getting these fellows fans in their hats, or more water breaks-- rather than trying to push on a very long and very thin string of curbing CO2 emissions to hold down temperatures. And just think, if these folks had access to cheap and reliable energy, they could have tractors to do this work.
"The number and intensity of hurricanes hitting the US decreases; you say they have increased elsewhere to compensate, citing no evidence."
I didn't say they've increased elsewhere. You're putting words in my mouth.
You said, "Hurricanes have been almost entirely absent for the last ten years."
That is plainly false.
Now, if you meant, "Hurricanes have almost entirely missed the U.S. in the last ten years," you would be correct. But you did not say that. You said something that is false in order to try to gain denialist points.
2007-2016 - 65 Atlantic Hurricanes, 28 Major
1997-2006 - 78 Atlantic Hurricanes, 36 Major (2005 is an outlier, with 15 hurricanes)
1987-1996 - 58 Atlantic Hurricanes, 22 Major
1977-1986 - 52 Atlantic Hurricanes, 16 Major
1967-1976 - 56 Atlantic Hurricanes, 17 Major
1957-1966 - 56 Atlantic Hurricanes, 29 Major
As you can clearly see, there has been no drought in the last 10 years. The past 10 years had more and stronger hurricanes than most of the previous 10 year periods.
Moose
These folks seem to agree with you.
Weather: Hurricanes May Be Changing
NOAA Hurricanes
John, from your cite: "The United States has not seen a major hurricane (Category 3 or higher on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale) make landfall in a record nine and a half years."
Pardon my parochial outlook, but if we truly are suffering from "global warming" then isn't the US participating? I know Trump took us out of the Paris agreement, but does that exempt us from the whole "Catastrophic Global Warming" thingie, too? Good job!
Moose, you're making a lot of fuss about precise words. I cited the study I had, and John cites another that says the same thing. I don't know where you got your numbers but again, even if you ARE correct and the hurricane experts are wrong, you still have done ZERO to prove that curbing manmade CO2 will make any difference. You are making that totally unjustifiable logical leap that the alarmists want you to make.
John, from your other cite: "In short, the historical Atlantic hurricane record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term increase."
This is what bothers me about this debate, starting with the first IPCC report. Most of the actual science in the detailed report (not the "summary for policymakers" put together by politicians and endlessly ballyhooed in the press) is of this same type. That is, "if the world continues to get warmer, we think such-and-so will happen." The alarmists then immediately remove the "if" from those statements and claim the world is ending, and it's OUR FAULT.
Here's a list: The List
"I cited the study I had, and John cites another that says the same thing. I don't know where you got your numbers but again, even if you ARE correct and the hurricane experts are wrong, you still have done ZERO to prove that curbing manmade CO2 will make any difference."
I am interested in the truth. You apparently are not. I have never claimed that any of this is about CO2 or anything related to global warming, natural or anthropogenic. I'm simply correcting your inaccurate information. If you can't admit to being incorrect, then you're simply lying.
From Wikipedia
which uses this source
NOAA Atlantic Hurricanes Table
If you don't like to be corrected, perhaps you should know your "stuff" before you claim false information as the truth.
I will quote you one more time:
"Hurricanes have been almost entirely absent for the last ten years."
That is an outright factual error based on real numbers from scientific sources. It is not debatable.
Of course, you used the false information to try to support your claim that the predictions are hogwash, but the true information does not support your claim. I'm not using it to try to support a claim about anything except your deceit. You're going to have to edit your denialist talking points.
Moose
Let's put the shoe on the other foot, shall we? You say "you" never claimed that hurricanes were connected to global warming, yet the numbers that supposedly support your claim come from people and from articles that DO make such a claim, strongly and repeatedly. Those claims, as usual, are disproven even by their own numbers.
And you are nitpicking, to boot. Had I said, "IN THE US, [h]urricanes have been almost entirely absent for ten years" you would have had no quibble, unless you are trying that old Warmist trick of taking a minor misstatement and assuming that disproves everything a person has ever had to say. It's borderline despicable tactics, but liberals use it all the time. Well played, now put your faux outrage away and debate the premise on its merits.
How many of the other hundreds of "things caused by global warming" would you like to say are real concerns? Does it matter if the warming is natural, or is the sky falling regardless?
Jerry,
The reality is that it really doesn't matter what anyone writes regarding this topic...
Both the true believers and the deniers are adamant that they know the truth...
"yet the numbers that supposedly support your claim come from people and from articles that DO make such a claim"
The claim I made is that your assertion that hurricanes have been absent for the last ten years is false. The numbers I gave are the numbers from the people that track the numbers. You've refused to acknowledge that you made a false claim relating to an agenda that the numbers aren't trying to support (or not support). I have proved your statement to be false. You're the one who keeps telling us to look at the numbers, the science. Take your own advice.
I can see why you support Trump. You're guilty of the same disconnect from reality that he is guilty of.
Moose
The claim you made, Moose, is that because the numbers you supposedly have, supposedly from "the people that track the numbers" do not match the information that I have offered. You accuse me repeatedly of untruth for simply relating what my equally accurate sources say on the subject, and you do it to discredit everything I have said or may say on the subject of so-called "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming." It's dirty, petty debate ad hominem and if you cannot do better that that I win.
John, you are referencing what is called (I think) the "iron rule," where people overestimate their own knowledge. That, followed by confirmation bias, accounts for why both sides think they are correct, but only one side actually is. The example of the rule was: suppose you ask people if they know how a toilet works. Most people think they know. Ask them to draw a diagram of how a toilet works and explain why, and most of them cannot do it. What they THINK they know and what they actually know are two completely different things, but you cannot convince them they are talking through their hat without overwhelming proof, to which most, because of confirmation bias, will not listen.
Another example. A recent Yale study found that 50% of people believe human CO2 is the principal contributor to global warming. Dollars to doughnuts they have no idea as to HOW that happens, let alone doing the math. They are repeating what they have been told and assuming they know the truth. Skeptics, at least and for the most part, have math, physics and such on their side of the debate but it isn't convincing to the "steel trap minds" of the casual observers aka true believers.
Oh give me a break. The "skeptics" are more knowledgeable and scientifically capable. You have got to be kidding.
I have read enough of your sources to know better.
So, YOU know better than the "skeptics" I quote, many of whom are PhDs in the relevant fields of study? Ask yourself, in the current milieu of "climate correctness," why would ANYBODY be a skeptic without what they considered unassailable truth on their side? Considering the stridency of those defending the lie, what else would you have an honest skeptic do?
Right now, the main "guy" responsible for the hoax, Michael Mann, is still in court for refusing to produce the data and methodology upon which his famous (and highly erroneous) "hockey stick" is based. When he loses that case, which he inevitably must, he will also lose his defamation lawsuit and be hit with a huge cost. THEN, as some have already surmised, it will be shown that his methodology produces a "hockey stick" with numbers taken at random from the phone book.
Until your learned scientists can predict the winner of the 5th race at Pimlico, do not imagine they can predict something as incredibly complex as climate 100 years out. They can guess, but even now their ["scientific"] hunches only tell us that one of the 16 horses will win. It just amazes me that intelligent people want to believe the sky is falling, rather than the far more sensible "do nothing, wait and see" approach.
Of all the sources you have provided, I think only 1 had a phd in relevant field. The guy from Virginia. Most of the others were political science, economists, etc.
"The claim you made, Moose, is that because the numbers you supposedly have, supposedly from "the people that track the numbers" do not match the information that I have offered. You accuse me repeatedly of untruth for simply relating what my equally accurate sources say on the subject, and you do it to discredit everything I have said or may say on the subject of so-called "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming." It's dirty, petty debate ad hominem and if you cannot do better that that I win."
"Hurricanes have been almost entirely absent for the last ten years."
Very well. Prove that your statement is true.
Moose
'"The claim you made, Moose, is that because the numbers you supposedly have, supposedly from "the people that track the numbers" do not match the information that I have offered.'
I posted the links to the information. Good try, but you can't win an argument with the above nonsense.
Moose
"...rather than the far more sensible "do nothing, wait and see" approach."
Sounds like a recipe for boiled frog.
Moose
That assumes some source of deadly heat, and that the frog is incapable of hopping out. Neither is true of our planet, and humans have the remarkable ability to adapt to what the planet chooses to do. We survived the last ice age; given enough economic development, we'll survive the next one. It's August, and the temperature is 61 degrees. I'm not concerned.
Moose,
I think it is more like driving in Northern MN Moose country at night.
The driver knows there is a possibility of moose on the road, they see something at the edge of their head light's range and they just keep driving like it is the middle of a bright beautiful day.
I may not be certain their is a moose standing on the road in front of me... But I sure know enough to slow down just in case...
Of course from Jerry's perspective it seems he is okay potentially hitting the moose which would cause death and destruction. And then those who survive can make repairs and adjust...
Jerry,
Don't make the silly comment that confuses local transient weather and global climate... It is beneath you.
By the way, I think humans can more easily adapt to an ice age than a heat wave...
As the article linked to in this posts notes, people just die when it gets too hot.
Well, if Trump and Kim have anything to say about it, we'll have some wonderful nuclear cooling to save us from destruction. How ironic.
Moose
Let us consider. We have people living in places that almost never reach 70 degrees, and remain below zero for much of the year. We have people living where temperatures sometimes stay above 90 degrees, day and night, for weeks on end. Now if you give people 100 years to adapt to temperatures between 4 degrees and 94 degrees, rather than zero and 90, do you think they will be OK?
And isn't the best thing to do is to watch carefully for moose and do something-- slow down or stop IF and ONLY IF you do see one? The "Catastrophic Warming" equivalent to your moose crossing would be asking us to stop for that moose crossing the road 100 miles away.
Moose,
Now that is sadly amusing... :-)
Jerry,
Read the source in the post... Or this one. Or this one...
The problem with the 90 vs 94 example is that it is only the average. Once you add the +/- 30 degree swing it can turn deadly fast. New Record High Temps
And if you think the moose is 100 miles away, you may need glasses. :-)
It's all hype. It is "highly likely" that these record temperatures (something like 8/100 of a degree hotter, and that is AFTER the numbers have been "fudged") are associated with manmade CO2. It is EQUALLY or more likely that these record temperatures are entirely a part of the normal climate cycle. Until you can prove an exact avenue and degree of causation between the two, excluding natural factors, nobody should be getting too excited about it. Yes, heat waves kills people, so does frostbite and hypothermia. Don't wear your parka in the summer. Put an air conditioner in your house and stay in. Adapt. Blaming the weather on human CO2 is only helpful if human CO2 is actually the principal driver of global temperatures, and that is highly questionable on many levels.
You cannot prevent wild moose from wandering onto the road any more than you can prevent global warming by curbing CO2 emissions. You can assess the probability of each event based on history, and on that score we post a sign about the moose and then don't drive beyond the range of our headlights. We don't change our CO2 habits just because somebody says we have already changed global climate history in a "hockey stick" way rather than what has actually been observed over the last 150 years and is continuing.
I suggest rereading some of these articles with the same skeptical eye I use. That is, they will say "hottest year on record" but rarely by how MUCH hotter. They will then imply near certainty that this trend will continue for the next 100 years, based on NO evidence whatsoever, and then claim we are all doomed because of these flawed predictions. Also, you will hear every time that these "hottest years" or "heat waves" or "hurricane increases" are CAUSED by burning fossil fuels, AGAIN, based on no scientific proof whatsoever and in fact contradicted by the actual data.
In short, what the climate alarmists are doing is like MASSIVELY overdriving the headlights in moose country. They want to park the car because they think a moose might appear on the road. Based on what we actually KNOW about the climate, it is massively overdriving our predictive abilities to suggest any sort of massive action. Once more, if you want to put solar cells on your roof because it saves you money, more power to you. If you want ME to pay more just because it produces less CO2 (and even that doubtful over the life cycle), then you will remain unsatisfied for a long time.
Food for thought from one of those sources above....
"When this dependency is taken into account, the likelihood of these three consecutive record-breaking years occurring since 1880 is about 0.03 percent in the absence of human-caused climate change. When the long-term warming trend from human-caused climate change is considered, the likelihood of 2014-2016 being the hottest consecutive years on record since 1880 rises to between 1 and 3 percent, according to the new study.
The probability that this series of record-breaking years would be observed at some point since 2000 is less than 0.7 percent without the influence of human-caused climate change, but between 30 and 50 percent when the influence of human-caused climate change is considered, the new study finds.
If human-caused climate change is not considered, the warming observed in 2016 would have about a 1-in-a-million chance of occurring, compared with a nearly 1-in-3 chance when anthropogenic warming is taken into account, according to the study.
The results make it difficult to ignore the role human-caused climate change is having on temperatures around the world, according to Mann. Rising global temperatures are linked to more extreme weather events, such as heat waves, floods, and droughts, which can harm humans, animals, agriculture and natural resources, he said.
"The things that are likely to impact us most about climate change aren't the averages, they're the extremes," Mann said. "Whether it's extreme droughts, or extreme floods, or extreme heat waves, when it comes to climate change impacts ... a lot of the most impactful climate related events are extreme events. The events are being made more frequent and more extreme by human-caused climate change."
Since you aren't interested in watching out for moose... We will keep an eye out for you. :-)
Hah! The article quotes Dr. Michael Mann, author of the famous "hockey stick," whose statistical methods produce a hockey stick graph regardless of what random data is fed into it. He has colluded with others to hide the actual data and methodologies involved, and to stifle critics of his work. We should pay attention to what the experts have to say, but known liars and charlatans should be taken with large blocks of salt.
In short, his use of statistics is highly suspect bordering on ludicrous. "The probability that this series of record-breaking years would be observed at some point since 2000 is less than 0.7 percent without the influence of human-caused climate change, ..." Think about that. Without ever actually QUANTIFYING "the influence," he states that it is the principle cause of the difference in statistical probability.
Let's try an analogy. Notice he confines himself to "since 2000." That's 16 years. There are two possible outcomes, that the following year is higher or it is lower (ignoring the equal). Now on a roulette wheel you can bet odd or even, and the odds (ignoring the 0 and 00) of each are .5. The odds of even two in a row are .25, and of 3 in a row .125 or 1/8, and the odds of 4 in a row are 0.06, or 1/16, since the first of the "three hottest years ever" must have been hotter than the previous. So, in 16 years, the odds are 50-50 -- 0.03-- that "3 in a row" will have occurred, assuming a completely natural variation. As my old Daddy used to say, "Figures never lie, but sometimes liars figure."
You watch out for those moose. Sometimes they run loose on the Penn campus, dropping their crap everywhere.
More Info on Lawsuit
Post a Comment