Study: Strongest hurricanes striking US three times more frequently

[ataraxia]

There are no links in #18.

There are. They are in the text greyed so you can click on it and it automatically directs you there.

As for the paper linked above, they refute themselves.

[FONT="]We use modeled climate projections to estimate the contribution of anthropogenic climate change to observed increases in eight fuel aridity metrics and forest fire area across the western United States.[/FONT]

So what science do you know that does not build on the data and models from before it to make projections?

 

[ludin]

There are. They are in the text greyed so you can click on it and it automatically directs you there.
So what science do you know that does not build on the data and models from before it to make projections?

Real science is based on what is observed. real science uses real observation.

modeling is based on speculation. modeling is only correct when you are using good data and good models.
if you look at modelings forecasts for hurricane tracks they are grossly inaccurate. in fact they used 50 or so models
to try and track a hurricane and even then they are not sure what is going to happen till it does.

models that use bad data and bad algorithms is even worse. it leads to more speculation based on flawed measurements.
historical data shows (you know data that is actually available and based on things that we have observed show that
wild fires and hurricanes are not out of control and are about normal if not reduced.

 

[Threegoofs]

Real science is based on what is observed. real science uses real observation.

modeling is based on speculation. modeling is only correct when you are using good data and good models.
if you look at modelings forecasts for hurricane tracks they are grossly inaccurate. in fact they used 50 or so models
to try and track a hurricane and even then they are not sure what is going to happen till it does.

models that use bad data and bad algorithms is even worse. it leads to more speculation based on flawed measurements.
historical data shows (you know data that is actually available and based on things that we have observed show that
wild fires and hurricanes are not out of control and are about normal if not reduced.

Oh. You like observation?

 

[Jack Hays]

There are. They are in the text greyed so you can click on it and it automatically directs you there.



So what science do you know that does not build on the data and models from before it to make projections?

There is no text in #18. As I said, I believe you refer to #16.
No field except climate science substitutes model projections for data.

 

[bluesmoke]

There are. They are in the text greyed so you can click on it and it automatically directs you there.



So what science do you know that does not build on the data and models from before it to make projections?

This prevaricator of disingenuity continues to perpetuate his perpetration of falsehood I’ve previously debunked/refuted. Please see Thread: The Amazon And Global Warming https://www.debatepolitics.com/envi...es/366367-amazon-and-global-warming-2.htmland my post #39 and #41 regarding the garbage posted on this thread about wildfires. Please also see Thread: What, me worry? What, me worry? post #136 and before and after posts for more thorough boredom regarding the garbage posted on this same thread about hurricanes.

I’ve caught this guy before making bald-faced misrepresentation. He’s not a credible, honest or forthright debater. An initial refute/debunk of his garbage posting is all that it’s worth before getting tortured by his nonsensical, endless spamming. Pathological prevarication, including evasion, deception and distraction, is his MO, akin to the great flim-flam man himself, Donald Trump.

I long for honest, forthright, fact-based debate opposition. I gladly admit when I’m wrong. Well, maybe not “gladly”.

 

[longview]

Oh. You like observation?

Except that the data represented is simply the temperature, not the cause of the temperature change.
That the temperature change is caused by increases in CO2, while likely, is pure assumption,
that is not supported by any empirical data.

 

[ataraxia]

Real science is based on what is observed. real science uses real observation.

modeling is based on speculation. modeling is only correct when you are using good data and good models.
if you look at modelings forecasts for hurricane tracks they are grossly inaccurate. in fact they used 50 or so models
to try and track a hurricane and even then they are not sure what is going to happen till it does.

models that use bad data and bad algorithms is even worse. it leads to more speculation based on flawed measurements.
historical data shows (you know data that is actually available and based on things that we have observed show that
wild fires and hurricanes are not out of control and are about normal if not reduced.

Have you ever seen an electron? Does that mean we should dump the entire model of the atomic theory of matter if you haven’t?

Do you want to ignore the next hurricane warning also? It sounds like you are leaning in that direction.

 

[longview]

Have you ever seen an electron? Does that mean we should dump the entire model of the atomic theory of matter if you haven’t?

Do you want to ignore the next hurricane warning also? It sounds like you are leaning in that direction.

Electron filmed for first time ever

 

[ludin]

Have you ever seen an electron? Does that mean we should dump the entire model of the atomic theory of matter if you haven’t?
Do you want to ignore the next hurricane warning also? It sounds like you are leaning in that direction.

as usual folks we have scientific statement based in logic and reason and the response is as expect one based on appeal to emotion.
just because I have not actually seen an electron doesn't mean science hasn't. we can measure them and we have seen the effects of splitting them.

who said anything about ignoring hurricane warnings can you please point it out to me because i didn't.
making up things people didn't say isn't' an argument. it is a fallacy.

 

[Threegoofs]

Except that the data represented is simply the temperature, not the cause of the temperature change.
That the temperature change is caused by increases in CO2, while likely, is pure assumption,
that is not supported by any empirical data.

I await your publication.

Because actual scientists who study this know better, and are not swayed by your DP posts.

 

[ataraxia]

Electron filmed for first time ever

I just see a wave. What color is it?

And the atomic theory of matter has been around for long before this recent picture. Was it not real science before?

 

[ataraxia]

as usual folks we have scientific statement based in logic and reason and the response is as expect one based on appeal to emotion.
just because I have not actually seen an electron doesn't mean science hasn't. we can measure them and we have seen the effects of splitting them.

who said anything about ignoring hurricane warnings can you please point it out to me because i didn't.
making up things people didn't say isn't' an argument. it is a fallacy.

The atomic theory of matter was around based on modeling, not any direct observation of electrons. Does that make it not real science?

Of course, now, or at least since the 1950s or so, we have been talking of neutrinos. Should we dismiss them too until we actually directly observe them?

 

[longview]

I await your publication.

Because actual scientists who study this know better, and are not swayed by your DP posts.

Then you can easily cite a published paper that provides evidence of CO2 capability?

 

[longview]

I just see a wave. What color is it?

And the atomic theory of matter has been around for long before this recent picture. Was it not real science before?

It was, but calculated based on observations.

 

[Threegoofs]

Then you can easily cite a published paper that provides evidence of CO2 capability?

You probably dont know what a review paper is, but here you go:

CO2, the greenhouse effect and global warming: from the pioneering work of Arrhenius and Callendar to today's Earth System Models - ScienceDirect

No doubt you’ll whine about that for whatever reason, so here’s the Huber and Knutti paper with evidence:

Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earths energy balance | Nature Geoscience

But I’m sure you’ll whine about that for whatever reason, too.

Frankly, you are asking a question that you are planning on denying is answered by any evidence.

That’s why you are a denier.

 

[ataraxia]

It was, but calculated based on observations.

So how is climate change different? It’s all modeling.

 

[ludin]

So how is climate change different? It’s all modeling.

:doh Climate change is a study of the a planets climate over thousands of years.
we can study this and tell that is measurable.

IE what triggered an ice age? we have found out (or have already known) for a while that the massive growth of sea ice
is a lead indicator of an ice age.

Climate change is not about modeling it is about studying what happened with past climate events.

what they are doing is called AGW. that is more or less sudo-science.

they can no more predict what the earths climate is going to do than they can predict anything else.
why? because we really don't know how earth climate fully functions.

IE right now i bet they didn't predict in any of their models the current deep freeze going on in the north/east right now.
the next few weeks is going to setup a ton of new lows for a lot of places.

this could continue. i honestly think that these polar vortexes are the pre-events to what caused actual ice age events.

 

[jimbo]

Again, you are not reading the references you’re posting. Let me quote the concluding paragraph for you:



Now, did you look at any of the links from post #18?

Predicted, probably, perceived, all in one sentence.

That's consensus science for you.

 

[Threegoofs]

:doh Climate change is a study of the a planets climate over thousands of years.
we can study this and tell that is measurable.

IE what triggered an ice age? we have found out (or have already known) for a while that the massive growth of sea ice
is a lead indicator of an ice age.

Climate change is not about modeling it is about studying what happened with past climate events.

what they are doing is called AGW. that is more or less sudo-science.

they can no more predict what the earths climate is going to do than they can predict anything else.
why? because we really don't know how earth climate fully functions.

IE right now i bet they didn't predict in any of their models the current deep freeze going on in the north/east right now.
the next few weeks is going to setup a ton of new lows for a lot of places.

this could continue. i honestly think that these polar vortexes are the pre-events to what caused actual ice age events.

More sharp analysis by ludin.

Sudo-science.

Cant argue with that.

But I have to point out that predicting the climate is EXACTLY what the IPCC did in the early 90s.

And they nailed it- unprecedented warming, specifically in the arctic, with all the consequences... shrinking sea ice, disappearing glaciers, sea level rise, more extreme weather.

 

[Jack Hays]

More sharp analysis by ludin.

Sudo-science.

Cant argue with that.

But I have to point out that predicting the climate is EXACTLY what the IPCC did in the early 90s.

And they nailed it- unprecedented warming, specifically in the arctic, with all the consequences... shrinking sea ice, disappearing glaciers, sea level rise, more extreme weather.

Actually, the IPCC themselves admit they got it wrong.

The IPCC AR5 Report included this diagram, showing that climate models exaggerate recent warming:

If you want to find it, it’s figure 11.25, also repeated in the Technical Summary as figure TS-14. The issue is also discussed in box TS3:

“However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box TS.3, Figure 1a; CMIP5 ensemble mean trend is 0.21°C per decade). This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect RF, and (c) model response error.”
​

NEW CLIMATE MODELS – EVEN MORE WRONG

Posted on 05 Nov 19 by PAUL MATTHEWS • 34 Comments

 

[Threegoofs]

Actually, the IPCC themselves admit they got it wrong.

The IPCC AR5 Report included this diagram, showing that climate models exaggerate recent warming:

If you want to find it, it’s figure 11.25, also repeated in the Technical Summary as figure TS-14. The issue is also discussed in box TS3:

“However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box TS.3, Figure 1a; CMIP5 ensemble mean trend is 0.21°C per decade). This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect RF, and (c) model response error.”
​

NEW CLIMATE MODELS – EVEN MORE WRONG

Posted on 05 Nov 19 by PAUL MATTHEWS • 34 Comments

The text is clear, and it says the opposite of your ****ty blog.

Predictions for averages of temperature, over large regions of the planet and for the global mean, exhibit positive skill when verified against observations for forecast periods up to ten years (high confidence1). Predictions of precipitation over some land areas also exhibit positive skill. Decadal prediction is a new endeavour in climate science. The level of quality for climate predictions of annual to decadal average quantities is assessed from the past performance of initialized predictions and non-initialized simulations. {11.2.3, Figures 11.3 and 11.4}
In current results, observation-based initialization is the dominant con- tributor to the skill of predictions of annual mean temperature for the first few years and to the skill of predictions of the global mean surface temperature and the temperature over the North Atlantic, regions of the South Pacific and the tropical Indian Ocean for longer periods (high confidence). Beyond the first few years the skill for annual and multi- annual averages of temperature and precipitation is due mainly to the specified radiative forcing (high confidence). {Section 11.2.3, Figures 11.3 to 11.5}

Weird that you would edit the figure.

Oh, wait. No it’s not. It’s the standard denier dishonesty. Here’s the entirety of figure 11.25:

 

[Jack Hays]

The text is clear, and it says the opposite of your ****ty blog.



Weird that you would edit the figure.

Oh, wait. No it’s not. It’s the standard denier dishonesty. Here’s the entirety of figure 11.25:

Sorry, but your tsunami of gobbledigook can't hide the models' poor performance, as admitted by the IPCC.

And now that you've edited your post, even you can see that what you've added doesn't change anything.

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=2]This Year’s Dry Europe Summer Nothing New, Happened More Often During Prosperous Medieval Period[/h]By P Gosselin on 12. November 2019
The two recent dry summers seen in Europe have led to alarmists believing that the climate doomsday has arrived. But The European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) looks at the past to see if this sort of thing is really unusual.
=======================

German forests growing much faster today than 1000 years ago. Photo: NTZ​

=================
[h=2]Dry summers as a doomsday scenario – are they really something new?[/h]By Axel Robert Göhring
(Text translated/edited by P. Gosselin)
Drought completely normal during High Medieval Ages.
Researchers from the German Department of Ecology and Ecosystem Dynamics at the University of Greifswald have shown that drought in the High Middle Ages was completely normal during the summer. Even if hardly any real scientist dares to say anything against the climate madness, many do their work properly and deliver many small mosaic pieces for dismantling all the fraud.
Last spring, however, one could hear “top physicist” Harald Lesch at the Markus Lanz’s ZDF show claim how climate change would hit quite badly in summer, how the drought of the “record summer” 2019 would have violent effects, especially on the holy German Forest (forest die-off scare came knocking again…).
So what about drought in the holy German Forest 2019? Is it real, or “interpreted”?
Well, it’s probably real. But why not? In summer it is hot and dry even in the temperate climate zone of Europe. Mr. Lesch & Co. showed a heat peak and claimed it is man-made climate change. And when a cold peak appears, then it is only weather – or even proof of climate change. Weather extremes are somehow more frequent today.
Dry summers in Europe not uncommon, new study

Biologist Martin Wilmking and his team from the University of Greifswald in the German state of Vorpommern now have shown that dry summers a thousand years ago were not uncommon in northern Germany. In fact, they were much warmer than today – and this without combustion engines, industry and motor traffic.
Prof. Wilmking and his biologists evaluated so-called proxy data, i.e. verifiable effects of climate in animate or inanimate nature. Specifically, the team worked on annual rings in living beech trees and thousand-year-old archaeological timber: the long established field of expertise is dendroclimatology (Greek: dendron – the tree).
Trees growing faster today
The authors prove once again that our forests are growing much faster today than in the past, because agriculture (also traffic & industry) provides them with a lot of fixed nitrogen (ammonium salts).
The modestly increased CO2 content of today’s air also allows the trees to open the stomata of the leaves for a shorter period of time, thus limiting water losses. In other words, our industrial civilization is considerably HELPING the forest by supplying it with building materials and even water indirectly. This is nothing new for avid EIKE readers, as we have pointed out more than once that the planet has become much greener in recent decades.
Often dry in the prosperous High Middle Ages
If one includes the faster growth of today’s trees, one can conclude in comparison using the annual ring curves of the historical woods that it was often dry in summer in the High Middle Ages. Even the Rhine, the largest river in Europe, became dry near Cologne. Yet the High and Late Middle Ages were not a phase of decline like the Early Middle Ages. . . .

 

[Threegoofs]

Sorry, but your tsunami of gobbledigook can't hide the models' poor performance, as admitted by the IPCC.

And now that you've edited your post, even you can see that what you've added doesn't change anything.

Black knight all you want, but you and your ****ty blogs are laughably wrong, as usual.

 

[Jack Hays]

Black knight all you want, but you and your ****ty blogs are laughably wrong, as usual.

Sorry, but your post merely supported mine. There's no dispute. I'm glad you added it.