Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists

[F430murci]

Seems as if one should have basic understanding and comprehension of weather and tropical storms before being critical of the opinions from those that studied and devoted their lives to such this area.

You speak in terms of absolutes, but have zero grasp on the concepts or factors at play. All of your points are fully addressed and easily understood by even amateur weather weenies that pay attention to and follow weather events.

You really exposed yourself and discredited yourself trying to discuss tropical storms. I guess the computer climate models are also in cohoots with the human conspiracist . . .

-----

Although the maximum intensity of tropical storms is projected to rise, the climate models suggest a scenario that's more complex than merely turning up the dials. "It doesn't mean there'll be more storms," Emanuel said. "In fact, the weaker storms might be less frequent, but it's not the weaker storms that do the damage. In the end, we're much more concerned about what happens at the high end. It's those guys that do all the terrible destruction."

http://m.nbcnews.com/science/typhoon-haiyan-pushed-limit-bigger-storms-are-coming-2D11577486

[F430murci]

Then we have the human factor . . . Sometimes so much math and numbers actually gets in the way of common sense and reality when dealing with matters that cannot be quantified by simple numbers like how many storms per year.

More overhyping a not too bad storm? I think not!

-----

The Philippines climate change commissioner gives an emotional speech blaming climate change for the destruction brought by Typhoon Haiyan.

. . .

"We remain uncertain as to the full extent of the damage and devastation as information trickles in agonisingly slow," he said. "The initial assessment showed that Haiyan left a wake of massive destruction that is unprecedented, unthinkable and horrific.

"The devastation is staggering," he said in a speech that lasted more than 10 minutes. "Up to this hour I agonise, waiting for word of the fate of my very own relatives. What gives me renewed strength and great relief is that my own brother has communicated to us and he has survived the onslaught.

"What my country is going through as a result of this extreme climate event is madness.

"We can fix this. We can stop this madness. Right now, right here," Mr Sano said, in a speech which received a standing ovation from his fellow delegates.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/philippines/10443293/Typhoon-Haiyan-Philippines-climate-change-commissioner-breaks-down-at-UN-talks.html

[RickBradford]

More overhyping a not too bad storm? I think not!

You think not. The American Geophysical Union thinks so.

"There are claims going around that Typhoon Haiyan was a result of climate change, and this is nothing short of ridiculous."

The journals Nature, Scientific American, and even Time magazine are taking the consensus view that this massive and tragic storm cannot be reliably linked to any supposed climate change.

Again you lead with the emotionalism. The teary reaction of a distressed person to a personal tragedy is not science.

There is a perfectly good thread running elsewhere on this forum about the impact of the typhoon; this thread is about global warming/cooling.

[F430murci]

More overhyping a not too bad storm? I think not!

You think not. The American Geophysical Union thinks so.

"There are claims going around that Typhoon Haiyan was a result of climate change, and this is nothing short of ridiculous."

The journals Nature, Scientific American, and even Time magazine are taking the consensus view that this massive and tragic storm cannot be reliably linked to any supposed climate change.

Again you lead with the emotionalism. The teary reaction of a distressed person to a personal tragedy is not science.

There is a perfectly good thread running elsewhere on this forum about the impact of the typhoon; this thread is about global warming/cooling.

Nice misdirection and deflection. That is your MO.

You have zero credibility and your effort at changing the focus of your original overhype statement is comical.

You stated that Haiyan was overhyped in that it was not really that strong, but that the AGW nuts were trying to make it out to be stronger than it really was. You said it was not a cat 5 on Saffir Simpson and it was a typical and not unprecedented storm.

Now you act like your original overhype comment was in reference to efforts at connecting Haiyan to AGW. Funny!

Candidly, you are just a time waster that is clueless about weather, weather patterns, climate and completely clueless about tropical systems. you busted yourself here and your comments about CO2's impact on the ocean was hilarious.

The substance of your weather knowledge and what you say could be summed up in 2 or 3 paragraphs, yet you have said it over and over again in perhaps a hundred posts, most of which ignore weather facts and data provided earlier in the thread.

You were entertaining while it lasted, but I am off to Vegas for some real entertainment.

[canuckamuck]

Funny how Rick brings out references for everything he says, but his detractors rely primarily on personal attacks; trying hard to discredit him, which of course is the standard MO of any propagandist.

I guess it is easy to see which side is emotional and which side is rational. For example in the the last post only one sentence out of 8 contained any argument of the facts. Many posts from the alarmist camp contain no references or facts at all.

F40 is trying pretty hard to score a point on whether or not this storm was unprecedented. But this is a straw man to distract from what Rick is really saying. That scientists do not see evidence that global warming is causing more or larger storms. But since this doesn't fit with alarmism, F40 needs to keep pushing about how large this storm was. I think we all know this was a very big storm. But did we cause it?

[RickBradford]

For example in the the last post only one sentence out of 8 contained any argument of the facts.

And that one contained a deliberate falsehood -- I never mentioned the Saffir Simpson scale at all. But that is his/her MO.

[wilcopops]

Yes - I guess the gullible will swallow his references as "proof" - sadly it isn't so much the use of references, it's the quality of them and the inferences drawn that are sadly lacking.

I for one am not going to chase peer reviews on endless citations for a crank's discussion on a Thai forum........life's too short; but I can draw my own inferences from posts - and a lot of posters rely on people not checking their sources.- a classic way of someone with no real argument to attempt to give it some value.

It is the hallmark of "deniers" to attempt to blind others with what looks like science but is in fact Unscientifically compile or just "pseudo-science".

[Scott]

I note that some people have quit posting about the topic and are now commenting about other posters. This is not going to be allowed to continue.

Some people are not going to change their mind regardless of what is presented. You might want to stop beating your head against a wall.

Stay on topic.

[F430murci]

For example in the the last post only one sentence out of 8 contained any argument of the facts.

And that one contained a deliberate falsehood -- I never mentioned the Saffir Simpson scale at all. But that is his/her MO.

You did, you said is was not a cat 5, it was a cat 4. Do you not realize that cat 5 and 4 are saffir Simpson.

[RickBradford]

@F4 - I apologise for the 'deliberate falsehood' crack above -- it was unfair. You were making a justified assumption which I overlooked.

[canuckamuck]

I find the debate very interesting. I was just commenting on the tactics. Emotion versus reason

Carry on.

[Crossy]

A post using disguised profanity has been removed.

I will repeat Scott's warning in post #542 and add that holidays await further perpetrators.

[thaibeachlovers]

Climate change is real. The discredited propagandists are not.

Not worth looking at anymore. :yawn:

eom

Of course climate change is real. It's been happening ever since the planet formed.

The discussion is whether mankind caused the present change and whether anything can be done about it. Personally, I don't think anything will change given the refusal of anyone to give up carbon based transportation and electric power production.

[thaibeachlovers]

yea tell that to the pacific islanders that just lost everything... crazy crazy world we live in...

Just repeating the mantra that Haiyan was man made doesn't make it true.

BTW, it's not a <crazy crazy world we live in...>, it's the natural world we live in and storms, droughts, tsunamis and earthquakes are natural events. WE don't own the planet, whatever some people think. WE are just passing through, like the dinosaurs.

[thaibeachlovers]

Typhoon Haiyan was indeed a tragic natural disaster, though as pointed out previously, rather off-topic in a thread about global warming.

The similarities with the global warming issue are limited to the extraordinary media hype surrounding the storm: "biggest storm in history", "one of the strongest storms in world history" or "one of the most powerful storms on record to make landfall" which were simply untrue, as the Philippine Met Agency (PAGASA) pointed out.

In fact, it only ranked as a Cat 4 storm (out of 5), and so was not a "super" anything, except in the minds of the gullible.

Second, on a longer time scale, the last decade and a half has been a very quiet time for tropical storms, quite contrary to what global warming alarmists predicted.

Society needs to decide whether it's going to be driven by emotion or reason; in the media, at least, emotion is clearly winning out.

Overhype. Really? 10,000 plus dead with number potentially rising sharply and the utter devestation of infrastructure. You have to be pretty whack or insensitive to claim overhype.

Selecting PAGSA 10 minute averaging estimates for advisories as gospel for no other reason than to yell over hype reflects a complete lack of grasp of the subject matter. This also undermines your ability to convey meaning data about tropical storm frequency as you ignore or have no understanding of factors leading to development of tropical storms. Saffir-Simpson scale is not directly applicable to 10-minute averaging estimates.

Jeff Masters is the go to guy on hurricanes. I am part of a group that has chased these storms for two decades in search of big waves to surf. I met Masters years ago. His forecasting on both path and intensity has been second to none which is critical for positioning and safety when tackling these beasts with a surfboard. I would trust no other on these storms when it comes to my life and safety.

-----

Haiyan hit Guiuan, on the Philippine island of Samar, at 4:40 am local time November 8, 2013 (20:40 UTC November 7.) Three hours before landfall, the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) assessed Haiyans sustained winds at 195 mph, gusting to 235 mph, making it the 4th strongest tropical cyclone in world history. Satellite loops show that Haiyan weakened only slightly, if at all, in the two hours after JTWCs advisory, so the super typhoon likely made landfall with winds near 195 mph. The next JTWC intensity estimate, for 00Z UTC November 8, about three hours after landfall, put the top winds at 185 mph. Averaging together these estimates gives a strength of 190 mph an hour after landfall. Thus, Haiyan had winds of 190 - 195 mph at landfall, making it the strongest tropical cyclone on record to make landfall in world history. The previous record was held by the Atlantic's Hurricane Camille of 1969, which made landfall in Mississippi with 190 mph winds.

The Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA), which uses their own techniques to estimate typhoon strength via satellite imagery, put Haiyan's peak strength at 125 knots (145 mph), using a 10-minute averaging time for wind speeds. The Philippines weather agency (PAGASA) also uses a 10-minute averaging time for their typhoon wind advisories, and winds estimated by either JMA or PAGASA for Haiyan have appeared in the media, resulting in some confusion about what the typhoon's winds were at landfall. The averaging time used by JTWC and NHC is 1-minute, resulting in a higher wind estimate. To convert from 10-minute averaged winds to 1-minute average, one conversion factor that is commonly used is to multiply by 1.14--though lower conversion factors are sometimes used. Note that even after correcting for the difference between using 1-minute and 10-minute wind averaging times, the JMA wind estimates are well below what JTWC estimated; JMA consistently estimates weaker winds for high-end typhoons than JTWC. Since we have no actual measurements of the winds or pressure from Haiyan at landfall, we don't know which agency made a more accurate wind estimate.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2576&page=9#commenttop

The Phillipine government is now saying the death toll is 2,500. It always pays to wait a bit before repeating death toll numbers. They haven't even been to some places yet, so how can they say any number yet?

So, it's possible that the death toll is lower that that from driving accidents, but there is never an outcry about the road toll, IS THERE?

[Crossy]

Several off-topic posts have been removed.

The subject is Global Warming (or Climate Change if you wish).

[RickBradford]

The activists continue to have a field day with trying to link the tragic storm with global warming, as the UN prepares to waste millions of dollars more on futile 'climate talks' in Poland, aka COP19.

The language never changes;

Greenpeace called typhoon Haiyan the "writing on the wall for climate talk politicians", while Weepy Bill McKibben's 350.org altered the cliche slightly: "Typhoon Haiyan should be a wake-up call about the tragic potential of a world ravaged by climate change"

He went on: "We ... demand that our governments act with the urgency this moment .. blah, blah, *snip*"

These people never ask or request, they always "demand", though where they assume that right from beats me.

Too bad that some doofus decided to convene this latest useless gabfest in Poland, which at least maintains rationality on climate matters.

Prime Minister Donald Tusk has said: “We won’t allow ourselves to be misled by the industry lobbyists as our predecessors were, and we will not make Polish people believe that solar panels and wind turbines are the energy future of our country.”

The Warsaw Declaration was signed at the same time by members of the European Parliament, along with representatives from the U.S., Italy, Sweden, Hungary, and Poland. It calls on (not "demands") the UN to discontinue work on a new treaty until a genuine “scientific consensus is reached on the phenomenon of so-called global warming.”

Nice to see some rationality emerging.

[boomerangutang]

Did the Polish PM actually say: We will not make Polish people believe that solar panels and wind turbines are the energy future of our country.

What a dunce. Solar and wind (and thermal and methane) may not be the entire energy future for that part of Europe, but they should endeavor to make it a big part, unless they want to choke on coal fumes and/or have a Fukushima nearby.

As for the storm that lashed the Philippines: According to old timers, it was the biggest they could recall. Just suppose it was a factor in the climate change scenario, which most scientists agree it is, then there is cause for concern - foreboding higher incidences of mega-storms a-comin'.

[thaibeachlovers]

Did the Polish PM actually say: We will not make Polish people believe that solar panels and wind turbines are the energy future of our country.

What a dunce. Solar and wind (and thermal and methane) may not be the entire energy future for that part of Europe, but they should endeavor to make it a big part, unless they want to choke on coal fumes and/or have a Fukushima nearby.

As for the storm that lashed the Philippines: According to old timers, it was the biggest they could recall. Just suppose it was a factor in the climate change scenario, which most scientists agree it is, then there is cause for concern - foreboding higher incidences of mega-storms a-comin'.

Fukushima ( + Chernoble and 3 Mile Island ) was ( were ) caused by incompetence and lack of thinking about the worst that could happen and acting accordingly. If done properly, nuclear is safe and doesn't cause CO2 to increase, which is what the alternative does.

France has a massive nuclear power programme and has never, to my knowledge, had a nuclear disaster. The US navy has been safely running nuclear powered vessels for a very long time. Till something better ( ? nuclear fusion ) comes along, nuclear is the best option.

[wilcopops]

there are of course several blind alleys on how to avoid climate cane and nuclear power appears to be one........ As an alternative to burning carbon nuclear power has some serious drawbacks...... "A French Nuclear Disaster Could Cost $7.5 Trillion Dollars, Three Times Their GDP"

htre of course several blind alleys on how to avoid climate cane and nuclear power appears to be one........

[francescoassisi]

Saw an interesting programme on the melting tundra I n Alaska and it's potential to switch from an oulet of CO2 to a massive source of methane.

Despite the report in the OP it seems pretty obvious that changes at both poles are continuing in a way that causes concern.

As said earlier they are also a record of the planet's climate going back for several millennia.

[FiftyTwo]

Saw an interesting programme on the melting tundra I n Alaska and it's potential to switch from an oulet of CO2 to a massive source of methane.

Despite the report in the OP it seems pretty obvious that changes at both poles are continuing in a way that causes concern.

As said earlier they are also a record of the planet's climate going back for several millennia.

On the other hand, if it melts, that's a lot more land for growing crops.

[attrayant]

Wow 22 pages. I skimmed many of the posts and the ignorance* is astounding.

That's why they changed the term from 'global warming' to 'climate change'

The term "climate change" has been around since the 70s (cites available upon request) - it hasn't just been recently cooked-up by the mysterious "they" as part of some nefarious goal post shifting.

I really just cannot see how a trace amount of CO2 can have any effect at all on global temperatures.

Well that all depends on what scientific instruments you are using to "see" the data with. Just your gut feelings? Sorry that won't cut it.

CO2 makes up something like 4% of the atmosphere by volume. Is that negligible? Well, ozone makes up about .00003% of the atmosphere (meaning there is 130,000 times more CO2 than ozone), and yet it shields the earth and prevents all of us from receiving lethal doses of UV radiation. So tell me again why 4% CO2 is supposed to be negligible.

And citing the Daily Fail as a source? Really? Their writes read almost any crazy thing posted on some person's crazy blog and then they regurgitate it as fact without checking the sources.

For those of you interested in learning (and seeing both sides of the debate), I recommend this YouTube video that goes into detail and does not use overly technical terms. It's only 6 minutes long and easily digestible by laymen:

Global warming has stopped? Again??

The author is a former science writer who knows how to dig through journalistic crappola and get to the source material - where we almost always find that the source data is being incorrectly reported or simply not understood at all. I highly recommend his entire channel on climate change: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

He always cites the source material and often shows how badly the media screw up when they try to report on scientific publications. His video on climate change deniers (who rely on their "feelings" rather than on hard science) is particularly hilarious.

*I'm not intending to use that word in a pejorative sense, but the literal one. It simply seems that most people don't have the information necessary that would allow thoughtful and accurate commentary on climate change, and yet they insist on doing so anyway.

[attrayant]

Correction: I did a bit of digging and found cites back to the 1950s showing the term "climate change" was being used. Just wanted to update that.

[wilcopops]

Saw an interesting programme on the melting tundra I n Alaska and it's potential to switch from an oulet of CO2 to a massive source of methane.

Despite the report in the OP it seems pretty obvious that changes at both poles are continuing in a way that causes concern.

As said earlier they are also a record of the planet's climate going back for several millennia.

On the other hand, if it melts, that's a lot more land for growing crops.

Are you aware of how facile that comment is?

[wilcopops]

Wow 22 pages. I skimmed many of the posts and the ignorance* is astounding.

That's why they changed the term from 'global warming' to 'climate change'

The term "climate change" has been around since the 70s (cites available upon request) - it hasn't just been recently cooked-up by the mysterious "they" as part of some nefarious goal post shifting.

I really just cannot see how a trace amount of CO2 can have any effect at all on global temperatures.

Well that all depends on what scientific instruments you are using to "see" the data with. Just your gut feelings? Sorry that won't cut it.

CO2 makes up something like 4% of the atmosphere by volume. Is that negligible? Well, ozone makes up about .00003% of the atmosphere (meaning there is 130,000 times more CO2 than ozone), and yet it shields the earth and prevents all of us from receiving lethal doses of UV radiation. So tell me again why 4% CO2 is supposed to be negligible.

And citing the Daily Fail as a source? Really? Their writes read almost any crazy thing posted on some person's crazy blog and then they regurgitate it as fact without checking the sources.

For those of you interested in learning (and seeing both sides of the debate), I recommend this YouTube video that goes into detail and does not use overly technical terms. It's only 6 minutes long and easily digestible by laymen:

Global warming has stopped? Again??

The author is a former science writer who knows how to dig through journalistic crappola and get to the source material - where we almost always find that the source data is being incorrectly reported or simply not understood at all. I highly recommend his entire channel on climate change: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

He always cites the source material and often shows how badly the media screw up when they try to report on scientific publications. His video on climate change deniers (who rely on their "feelings" rather than on hard science) is particularly hilarious.

*I'm not intending to use that word in a pejorative sense, but the literal one. It simply seems that most people don't have the information necessary that would allow thoughtful and accurate commentary on climate change, and yet they insist on doing so anyway.

Rick Bradford - thank you and good night..........

[FiftyTwo]

Saw an interesting programme on the melting tundra I n Alaska and it's potential to switch from an oulet of CO2 to a massive source of methane.

Despite the report in the OP it seems pretty obvious that changes at both poles are continuing in a way that causes concern.

As said earlier they are also a record of the planet's climate going back for several millennia.

On the other hand, if it melts, that's a lot more land for growing crops.

Are you aware of how facile that comment is?

Realistic, there have been studies done, and it would release a lot of fertile land.

Generally it would be a benefit to the world.

[Credo]

The problem is that there could be a 100+ years between the loss of agricultural land in other parts of the world and the tundra being a viable alternative.

[boomerangutang]

Did the Polish PM actually say: We will not make Polish people believe that solar panels and wind turbines are the energy future of our country.

What a dunce. Solar and wind (and thermal and methane) may not be the entire energy future for that part of Europe, but they should endeavor to make it a big part, unless they want to choke on coal fumes and/or have a Fukushima nearby.

As for the storm that lashed the Philippines: According to old timers, it was the biggest they could recall. Just suppose it was a factor in the climate change scenario, which most scientists agree it is, then there is cause for concern - foreboding higher incidences of mega-storms a-comin'.

Fukushima ( + Chernoble and 3 Mile Island ) was ( were ) caused by incompetence and lack of thinking about the worst that could happen and acting accordingly. If done properly, nuclear is safe and doesn't cause CO2 to increase, which is what the alternative does.

France has a massive nuclear power programme and has never, to my knowledge, had a nuclear disaster. The US navy has been safely running nuclear powered vessels for a very long time. Till something better ( ? nuclear fusion ) comes along, nuclear is the best option.

Nuclear for the planet is like fire for a wooden house. With Nuclear, As long as there are no major breaches, all is seemingly well. Similarly, as long as there is no runaway fire in a big house, all is seemingly well. As we know, when Nuclear goes bad, it can go very bad. The trade-off is not worth it, particularly when there are alternative types of energy production which are clean and safe. Promoters of nuclear say it's relatively lower cost. Fukushima and Chernobyl proved that's balderdash. The costs for Fukushima may already be over a trillion $$'s, and the bills will keep coming for decades. What's the cost for poisoning the Pacific Ocean?

[boomerangutang]

Saw an interesting programme on the melting tundra in Alaska and it's potential to switch from an outlet of CO2 to a massive source of methane. Despite the report in the OP it seems pretty obvious that changes at both poles are continuing in a way that causes concern. As said earlier they are also a record of the planet's climate going back for several millennia.

On the other hand, if it melts, that's a lot more land for growing crops.

Are you aware of how facile that comment is?

Realistic, there have been studies done, and it would release a lot of fertile land. Generally it would be a benefit to the world.

Let me see, the arctic and antarctic melt, seas rise by 20 feet, we lose a large portion of the largest cities on the planet, and then possibly gain some tundra to farm, so that would 'generally, be a benefit to the world' ?

All or most of the the tundra would be covered by sea water also. But just for fun, let's say it was high and dry. Then Man, with his destructive farming methods (scrape, plow, spray, plant, spray, plant, spray, until the soil is depleted) would render it lifeless in short order.