• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Heat waves, mosquito outbreaks, landslides

Thoreau72 said:
I think we are having a semantic moment.

If the level 5 is the strongest tornado, how does that mean that a level 1 is not violent?

It's the matching of the term "violent" with tornados. IMO, all are violent, even if they don't destroy human property.
Click to expand...

Semantic argument. Base rate fallacy.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Thank you for stating the obvious.

I wonder what the data here in the US shows, going back to 1950 for example, on the predominant months in which tornados touch down in CONUS?
Click to expand...

There is none. It is not possible to measure the number of tornadoes that touch down. We can't see all the tornadoes.
 
Land Surface Air Temperature Data
Study Claiming Insect Decline Due To Global Warming Is Based On Faulty Temperature Data.

We had a guest post by Bob Vislocky that covered this topic well a month ago. but here is a good write up reposted from Paul Homewood’s blog. Study Claiming Insect Decline Due To Global Warming Is Based On Faulty Temperature Data. January 20, 2019 By Paul Homewood h/t Joe Public/Dave Ward Many thanks to…

[FONT=&quot]. . . To sum up, we have a paper which makes bold claims that arthropods have been declining at an alarming rate since the 1970s, and that the cause is climate warming.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Yet these claims are based on long term temperature data, which, according to the organisation that actually maintains the data, is not reliable and should not be used for long term trends.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The only reliable data covers the period since 1992, and this shows declining temperatures. Even this dataset is not consistent with the Bisley one.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Clearly the whole study is worthless, and the paper should be withdrawn.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]There are some alarming facts about all of this:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1) Why did the researchers not suspect that the temperature data looked hopelessly wrong at the outset?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2) Why did peer review not do the basic checks that I did?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3) The study carries out some mindbendingly complex statistical analysis, linking arthropod decline to rising temperatures. But how can this analysis have been robust, when the temperature data was hopelessly wrong?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The conclusion is that the faulty temperature data matched the researchers’ expectations of climate warming, and consequently they never bothered to crosscheck. It would after all have been extremely simple to have asked the people who maintain the data.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Whether or not arthropods are in decline I have no idea. But by blaming non existent climate warming, there is a very real danger that the true cause is being missed. Indeed, looking at those graphs, it may well be climate cooling that is responsible.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I plan to contact PNAS, who published the paper, to request that it be withdrawn.[/FONT]



 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]What drought? California snowpack is now above normal[/h][FONT=&quot]Here’s some good news from the “weather not climate” department. The latest series of storms, part of an “atmospheric river” pattern, have increased California’s snowpack to anywhere from 110 to 115% above normal for this time of year. The latest data from the Department of Water Resources shows that statewide average is above normal. Source: Apache Tomcat/7.0.78 - Error report
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
[h=2]Solar cycles to blame for jellyfish plagues (not coal fired plants)[/h]
.Image.Erin Silversmith
​
Three amazing things in this story. One that solar cycles might influence the oceans to such an extent that jellyfish plaques are cycling in tune with the sun. Second is that the sun might control food for jellyfish on Earth somehow but have no effect on clouds, temperature or our climate (join the dots that expert climate models don’t). Third is that (briefly) there was actual scientific debate published on the ABC (even if only a few Australians were exposed to it). No one called anyone names, and both sides got to speak (albeit on different channels). Put it in your diary.
A couple of weeks ago on the ABC jellyfish were booming and it was because of climate change:
[h=3]Jellyfish are causing mayhem as pollution, climate change see numbers boom[/h]RN By Hong Jiang and Sasha Fegan for Late Night Live
…the brainless, spineless, eyeless, bloodless creatures are booming in numbers — and causing mayhem around the world.
Some scientists think jellyfish numbers are increasing as the climate changes — the creatures reproduce well in warmer waters.
This week, another researcher said there were “emotive” claims, but the data was weak and there was much better evidence that jellyfish surge in 22 year cycles that match the solar pattern instead:
[h=3]Solar activity to blame for jellyfish surge, expert says, as warming waters ‘rev up’ metabolism[/h]ABC Radio Adelaide By Malcolm Sutton
Marine science professor Kylie Pitt from Griffith University is seeking to publish a research paper connecting jellyfish numbers to the 22-year cycle of solar sunspot activity and subsequent changes in magnetic fields.
Pulling together worldwide datasets of jellyfish that go back decades, she said her team found the creatures would increase in abundance for 10 years, then decrease, then start again in what was found to be a 22-year cycle.
Solar cycles are really 22 years (or so) because each 11 year alternate cycle alternates with the North pole “on top” then the South pole.
[h=3]Sunspots affecting ocean productivity[/h]Some scientists believe there is a worldwide increase in jellyfish numbers due to warming waters and pollution and that tropical stingers could be pushing further south.
“There’s been a lot of emotive commentary about jellyfish for a long time, even in the scientific community, with people making claims that jellies under anthropogenic stress are going to take over the oceans and all that sort of stuff,” Professor Pitt said.
But her team believed jellyfish numbers increased because solar cycles could affect wind changes, which “turned over nutrients and stimulated the growth of phytoplankton” and subsequently ocean food productivity.
Try to imagine how the sun could increase phtyoplankton and jellyfish and yet have *definitely* no effect on clouds, or temperature?
Here’s some more dots… there are scientists who think phytoplankton changes CO2 levels (more on that soon), and others who think microbial sea life can affect cloud seeding.
Fourth amazing thing is a marine researcher willing to say they need data to support their models and that the man-made signal was not statistically significant.
“We need to wait and see if that data starts rolling in and our predictions are supported.”
Professor Pitt’s study found a “really small signal” that there was an overall increase in jellyfish numbers irrespective of the 22-year cycle but not one that was “statistically significant”.
“It’s absolutely not a given that warmer water causes more jellyfish and there’s nowhere near enough data to say that,” she said.
“Some of my colleagues are quite sure that it’s happening but the data for it isn’t very strong.”
Bravo to Kylie Pitt from Griffith University. And well done Malcolm Sutton, ABC, Adelaide.




 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Inverse Hockey-Stick: climate related death risk for an individuals down 99% since 1920[/h][FONT=&quot]Bjørn Lomborg writes on Facebook about some new and surprising data that turn climate alarmist claims upside down. Fewer and fewer people die from climate-related natural disasters. This is clearly opposite of what you normally hear, but that is because we’re often just being told of one disaster after another – telling us how *many* events…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/27/inverse-hockey-stick-climate-related-death-risk-for-an-individuals-down-99-since-1920/"]
individual-climate-related-deaths-460x260.png
[/URL][/FONT]
[h=1]Inverse Hockey-Stick: climate related death risk for an individuals down 99% since 1920[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]Bjørn Lomborg writes on Facebook about some new and surprising data that turn climate alarmist claims upside down. Fewer and fewer people die from climate-related natural disasters. This is clearly opposite of what you normally hear, but that is because we’re often just being told of one disaster after another – telling us how *many* events…[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/27/inverse-hockey-stick-climate-related-death-risk-for-an-individuals-down-99-since-1920/"]Continue reading →[/URL][/FONT]
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Bjorn Lomborg? This Bjorn Lomborg?

Bjorn_Lomborg_Sea_Level_Rise.jpg
 
Jack Hays said:
His question was quite reasonable when asked. Your Monday morning quarterbacking impresses no one.
Click to expand...

No. It wasn't. 2 years is not a "trend" to any rational informed person.

Is your mindless copying and pasting of tens of thousands of conspiracy blog posts meant to impress anyone? Some old folks in the old people's home with your daring copy and paste skills?
 
Quaestio said:
No. It wasn't. 2 years is not a "trend" to any rational informed person.

Is your mindless copying and pasting of tens of thousands of conspiracy blog posts meant to impress anyone? Some old folks in the old people's home with your daring copy and paste skills?
Click to expand...

Since he never claimed it was a trend I don't think you have a point.
 
Jack Hays said:
Since he never claimed it was a trend I don't think you have a point.
Click to expand...

It's Lomborg who had no point. It was an ignorant ridiculous thing to say. But then again, you're used to seeing ignorant ridiculous comments in all your tens of thousands of copied and pasted pseudoscience blog posts, so it probably looked like an "intelligent" thing to say, to you.
 
Quaestio said:
It's Lomborg who had no point. It was an ignorant ridiculous thing to say. But then again, you're used to seeing ignorant ridiculous comments in all your tens of thousands of copied and pasted pseudoscience blog posts, so it probably looked like an "intelligent" thing to say, to you.
Click to expand...

You cannot insult your way to success.
Lomborg asked a perfectly reasonable question.
 
Jack Hays said:
You cannot insult your way to success.
Lomborg asked a perfectly reasonable question.
Click to expand...

You can't mindlessly copy and paste conspiracy blog posts to 'success'. Unless you believe your basic copying and pasting skills make you a 'success'.

Lomborg's statement was utterly stupid.
 
Quaestio said:
You can't mindlessly copy and paste conspiracy blog posts to 'success'. Unless you believe your basic copying and pasting skills make you a 'success'.

Lomborg's statement was utterly stupid.
Click to expand...

You mindlessly copy and paste dogma on a regular basis. What's the difference besides your confirmation bias towards them?
 
Lord of Planar said:
You mindlessly copy and paste dogma on a regular basis. What's the difference besides your confirmation bias towards them?
Click to expand...

No, I don't. Unless you're calling published literature from science Journals 'dogma'. In which case you're just painting yourself as an irrational climate truther who rejects science.
 
Quaestio said:
No, I don't. Unless you're calling published literature from science Journals 'dogma'. In which case you're just painting yourself as an irrational climate truther who rejects science.
Click to expand...
Have you ever cited a paper that might be considered skeptical of the official IPCC position?
There have been papers published int he Science journals,
but if you only cited papers that support your belief, that reflects some level of bias.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom