Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

ican711nm wrote:

maporsche wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Hmmm ... from your posts, parados and maporsch, you seem like you have suffered the equivalent of "group think."

"Humans are causing increased hurricane frequency."

"The number of deaths caused by a hurricane is not a relevant measure of the intensity of hurricanes."

1st, very few people have claimed that GW causes in increase in hurricane frequency. I certainately am not one of those who beleives this, nor has made this claim.

2nd, you cited hurricane deaths as proof of a hurricane's intensity. I'm merely stating that is not a relevant measure of intensity. ... Obviously your point is flawed, which is what I've challenged.

How many = "very few?"

I did not claim that hurricane deaths were PROOF of hurricane intensity. I do claim deaths caused by a hurricane are a valid measure of the damage a hurricane did. If hurricanes did zero damage, then they would not be worth worrying about no matter what is their intensity. I think the number of deaths a hurricane causes correlates too well with the intensity of the winds of that hurricane. The intensity of the winds in hurricanes that do little or no damage is of zero interest to me. It would be better if most hurricanes did little or no damage either because they stayed well out to sea, or because their intensities were insufficient to cause any damage.

GW claims that hurricane intensity will increase (measure by duration and wind speed) as the temperature of the waters under the hurricane increase.

GW doesn't claim anything. GW is not some spirit whose word is not to be challenged. Some climatologists have made that claim. Their word like any other human's word is always subject to challenge.

The only way to measure hurricane intensity is by the duration of the storm, and the actual wind speed.

The most relevant way to measure hurricane intensity after it has occurred is by the damage it did.

You much include hurricanes that hit and do not hit land, as GW does not claim that more hurricanes will hit land because of GW.

Some climatologists have in fact predicted more intense hurricanes will hit land than in the past because of global warming. Others have predicted them to be less intense. Many climatologists are too uncertain to predict either way.

Deaths resulting from a hurricane could be caused by so many other things. In the last 400 years there have been huge advances in early warning systems, medicine, evaucuation procedures, structural engineering, etc. All of these things will have an effect on how many people die, but will not have an effect on the true measurement of intensity.

The accuracy of direct measurements of hurricane intensity has also been evolving. However, It ought to be obvious that after the fact measurements of the damage done by an hurricane are the most relevant measurements of what its PROBABLE intensity was at the time it was doing damage. In other words, it is the consequences of a hurricane that matter, not some set of uncertain measurements taken at a time and at a place when and where it is believed the maximum intensity of the hurricane occurred.

The most relevant way to measure hurricane intensity after it has occurred is by the damage it did.

Well, thats just as valid as proof of global warming if 2007 was warmer than 2006. Turnabout is fair play.

Ican, the fact is that it is impossible to accurately and objectivaly gauge the intensity of a hurricane based on the damage it causes.

For example, if 2 equal strengh tornados touched down, 1 in a city and 1 in a grassy field, it's obvious which one is going to do more damage. From a scientific viewpoint the tornados were of equal strength and wind speed, but other factors resulted in the amount of damage caused that had nothing to do with the tornado itself.

If you can't see how storm damage is not an accurate measurement, then I don't know what else I could say to convince you.

ican711nm wrote:

The most relevant way to measure hurricane intensity after it has occurred is by the damage it did.

Somebody better call NOAA and the National Hurricane Center and every meteorologist around the world. Ican thinks they measure hurricane strength all wrong.

okie wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Changing the pace a bit, I thought you guys might enjoy taking this little 10-question test on global warming. (I confess I did miss one thus scoring a pitiful 90%)

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html

I will admit I came to the first question, and decided not to take the test, as I am guessing the answer is supposed to be yes, although not due to man, nevertheless I don't like the question as the warming in my opinion is so small as to be negligible and virtually within the limits of the margin of error, and the earth may not be warmer in all regions, but only as an overall average, which is not surprising of course, as the climate is constantly changing. And right now, the earth is cooler than last year, so the question needs more information or qualifiers, such as compared to when, last year, 25 years ago, 100 years ago, whatever. As of right this very moment, we can't be sure the earth is actually warming, as compared to yesterday.

I admit to being too analytical, but I hate rhetorical and trapping questions that may have multiple answers, depending upon the qualifiers, which are not given.

Actually the questions were very good with good analytical explanations for why an answer is correct or incorrect. I think you might enjoy the discussion accompanying the answer to No. 1 learned something.

Foxfyre wrote:

okie wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Changing the pace a bit, I thought you guys might enjoy taking this little 10-question test on global warming. (I confess I did miss one thus scoring a pitiful 90%)

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html

I will admit I came to the first question, and decided not to take the test, as I am guessing the answer is supposed to be yes, although not due to man, nevertheless I don't like the question as the warming in my opinion is so small as to be negligible and virtually within the limits of the margin of error, and the earth may not be warmer in all regions, but only as an overall average, which is not surprising of course, as the climate is constantly changing. And right now, the earth is cooler than last year, so the question needs more information or qualifiers, such as compared to when, last year, 25 years ago, 100 years ago, whatever. As of right this very moment, we can't be sure the earth is actually warming, as compared to yesterday.

I admit to being too analytical, but I hate rhetorical and trapping questions that may have multiple answers, depending upon the qualifiers, which are not given.

Actually the questions were very good with good analytical explanations for why an answer is correct or incorrect. I think you might enjoy the discussion accompanying the answer to No. 1 learned something.

Upon your advice, I went back and took the test. I missed one, the second one, but got their desired correct answers on the other 9. I will protest the second question though because of the problem of context of the question. It is:
The "Greenhouse Effect" is real and contributes to global warming. True or false.
Obviously, the atmosphere helps hold the heat in the atmosphere, so the answer is true in that context. However, whether the Greenhouse Effect is contributing to the current warming trend, which is extremely small, is false in my opinion. The Greenhouse Effect mainly moderates the temperature swings from very very cold at night to very very hot during the day, but whether the Greenhouse Effect, or implied changes in Greenhouse gases such as CO2, is driving the subtle average earth temperature trends is not established, and in fact the answer should be false to be consistent with a correct answer to at least one other question in the test.

Analysts say few people are taking action to deal with the threat of climate change, although over the past 12 months the vast majority have come to accept that it poses a real threat to the world. ... ... 2007 may have brought final acceptance of the danger of global warming, but it has not triggered demands for urgent action. ... ...

In Britain, people have made no noticeable changes to their behaviour and are taking increased numbers of car journeys, going on more flights, pumping out more carbon dioxide and using more electricity to heat their homes. At the same time there is deep antagonism towards green taxes and the introduction of wind farms to the countryside to generate carbon-free electricity.

From a report in today's The Observer:

Quote:

Analysts say few people are taking action to deal with the threat of climate change, although over the past 12 months the vast majority have come to accept that it poses a real threat to the world. ... ... 2007 may have brought final acceptance of the danger of global warming, but it has not triggered demands for urgent action. ... ...

...

For those people who misintepret the year-by-year global mean temperature graphs to suggest things are plateauing or cooling, it's time to think again: http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/science/2007/12/29/YE.Climate.Records/

How do you know it's a normal cycle? How do you know there isn't a human contribution to this cycle?

And, again, what is the benefit to you and others that deny global warming?

ican, don't forget the temperatures compared to 1878 also incorporate more heat island effects due to land use and skewed weather station conditions in urban areas, etc. that are associated with more recent temperatures. For example, average ocean temperatures or average temperatures measured higher in the atmosphere do not show as much warming, and are probably better indicators of what is going on.

I agree! Trouble is, I don't know how to make that clear enough for the "doomsdayers" to comprehend. But then I haven't been able to make the much simpler model I presented clear enough for the "doomsdayers" to comprehend.

It will be interesting to see how December influences the final 2007 averages, but as I asserted many pages back, the subtle rise in global temperatures seems to have plateaued out during the past few years, much to the consternation of the doomsdayers.

ican,
I love how you picked 1878 for comparison. From 1850 -1937, 1878 was the only year above 15C. Nothing like scientific dishonesty to try to present your case, I guess.

Leave it to okie to cheer on your cherry picking of stats since he is prone to do it himself.

Why don't you compare 5 year averages?

Funny stuff there okie.. Of course you would argue that a .05 increase is a plateau. It's the only argument you can make.

Nothing changes the fact that EVERY year since 1994 has been warmer than EVERY year prior to 1980

And every year from 2001 on has been warmer than EVERY year since 1850 BUT 1998.

And WOW.. from 1850 until today according to Hadcrut3... the 10 warmest years have been in the last 11 years. But I guess warming isn't occurring because if we look only at the last year we cooled since 1998.