ADVERTISEMENT

OT: Looks like Gulf area gonna get hammered again...

He is a total clown
So far this has been your grades

Make an uninformed statement -pass
Attack credentials of informed response - fail
Credential fail so attack personally - fail

I do not know Dr Spencer like you obviously must but whether you like him or not historical data is historical data.
It is interesting with you global warming guys. You are much more comfortable "predicting" what will happen than actually observing what has happened. You can't be proven wrong with a prediction [except after the fact]
So let me offer you the same challenge I have posted previously. Please provide a couple examples [even one would be a good start] of a dire prediction made by the climate folks in or around the years 1998-2000 that has come true. By that I do not mean the temp may have gone up .3 degrees or sea level might have increased a half an inch, but i mean the cataclysmic events that would occur. [Miami and NYC under water, eastern seaboard flooded, our children would never see snow etc.] The stuff that freaked people out.

BTW Just so i understand on a related subject The recent record heat wave in Ca was due to global warming and the near record snowfall in Colorado was just a weather event right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JJTopp99
“PhD from a matchbook cover” Hehe

BS Univ of Michigan Atmospheric Science
MS PhD University of Wisconsin Meteorology
Lead Research Scientists Univ of Alabama
Awarded NASA Excellence in Scientific Research Award
Carry on, better call Don or Rachel to better learn about hurricanes

Obviously this guy knows hurricanes.

GlennSwartzwebbio.jpg
 
So far this has been your grades

Make an uninformed statement -pass
Attack credentials of informed response - fail
Credential fail so attack personally - fail

I do not know Dr Spencer like you obviously must but whether you like him or not historical data is historical data.
It is interesting with you global warming guys. You are much more comfortable "predicting" what will happen than actually observing what has happened. You can't be proven wrong with a prediction [except after the fact]
So let me offer you the same challenge I have posted previously. Please provide a couple examples [even one would be a good start] of a dire prediction made by the climate folks in or around the years 1998-2000 that has come true. By that I do not mean the temp may have gone up .3 degrees or sea level might have increased a half an inch, but i mean the cataclysmic events that would occur. [Miami and NYC under water, eastern seaboard flooded, our children would never see snow etc.] The stuff that freaked people out.

BTW Just so i understand on a related subject The recent record heat wave in Ca was due to global warming and the near record snowfall in Colorado was just a weather event right?

Roy is a joke. The link I sent you documents the highlights of his career in climate misinformation.

I don't know about any climate catastrophes for 2020 that were predicted 20 years ago that aren't coming true (outside of Hollywood movies or your imagination), but I do know that much of what was predicted by scientific modeling has come true: mean global temperature is up by about 1 deg C (that's about 2 deg F) and that is much worse at the poles leading to a huge and accelerating ongoing loss in stable Arctic and Antarctic ice mass. I do know that sea levels are rising and that is a crisis in the Maldives and other low lying places. The higher sea levels are definitely also a big concern for Miami Beach (among other low lying places in the USA) which is now regularly flooded with impassible streets at least monthly during the highest tides (even on sunny days without a cloud in sight).

As far as the recent snow in the front range, it was certainly part of some wacky weather. Much of it didn't stick because just a few days before the region was hitting record highs. Denver (and other places in the region) set all time high temperatures for both Sept. 5 and 6. 101 deg F in Denver on the 5th, shattering the previous record. Yeah that was something, how when you get a really unusually hot air mass it is often followed by an unstable event, like very early snow in the Front Range. Very interesting and a good point. The climate is really changing!
 
I know that that there have many tropical storms this summer. However, my recollection is that the last several years have not been particularly bad regarding the impact of tropical storms.

Based on my following of the weather, it seems as if these storms come in cycles, and the cycle now is bring these storms into the Gulf and then the Southeast. In a few years, it probably will change again, and these storms will impact the Southeast coast more.

Also, when was the last time that PA was affected as badly by a hurricane since Agnes in 1972?
The one that hit during a PSU fooball weekend that closed 322. Can't remember which year, but some time in the 2000s.
 
Like I said: Demons from outer space. Stop going blind!!!
Actually, the real story here may be solar activity cycles. Read up about the "little ice age", for example. Humans are important--but they are not the whole story.

And the reason some are skeptical about climate change is the politics that go along with it and the changes folks are asking for to fix it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: roswelllion
Actually, the real story here may be solar activity cycles. Read up about the "little ice age", for example. Humans are important--but they are not the whole story.

And the reason some are skeptical about climate change is the politics that go along with it and the changes folks are asking for to fix it.
This solar activity hypothesis has been completely discredited (outside of Russia that is)
 
This solar activity hypothesis has been completely discredited (outside of Russia that is)
By whom. Not that wikipedia is the perfect source, but it is still listed as one of the possibilities.

Link

There are others there, not all of which are due to man (one was related to humans--the possibility that the Black Death population reduction had an impact). But the point is that *something* caused it--and that climate is still something we don't know a lot about.
 
By whom. Not that wikipedia is the perfect source, but it is still listed as one of the possibilities.

Link

There are others there, not all of which are due to man (one was related to humans--the possibility that the Black Death population reduction had an impact). But the point is that *something* caused it--and that climate is still something we don't know a lot about.
I will dig up links later, but the fact is solar activity does influence weather but it’s not correlated to the current global climate change based on extensive research and the best validated modeling.
With greenhouse gases there’s not only a solid physical explanation but the modeling looks better and better the more data is accumulated and as computer power increases. 20 years ago computer modeling was a much weaker link than today. The uncertainty is way down.
 
The engineer in me who has done more energy balances than I care to remember just put you in the dumb as **** category.
Sorry you can’t get beyond your entry level thermodynamics but you clearly neither have the intellect nor the inclination to understand what nearly everyone studying the climate understands
 
I will dig up links later, but the fact is solar activity does influence weather but it’s not correlated to the current global climate change based on extensive research and the best validated modeling.
With greenhouse gases there’s not only a solid physical explanation but the modeling looks better and better the more data is accumulated and as computer power increases. 20 years ago computer modeling was a much weaker link than today. The uncertainty is way down.

Its amazing what you can get computers to spit out these days.
 
Sorry you can’t get beyond your entry level thermodynamics but you clearly neither have the intellect nor the inclination to understand what nearly everyone studying the climate understands

Right... I love people who have no idea what they're reading, but they're positive it is beyond reproach.
 
Right... I love people who have no idea what they're reading, but they're positive it is beyond reproach.
So do you want to get into a technical discussion? Be glad to do so. So far you haven't presented anything but personal attacks and non sequiturs.
 
I will dig up links later, but the fact is solar activity does influence weather but it’s not correlated to the current global climate change based on extensive research and the best validated modeling.
With greenhouse gases there’s not only a solid physical explanation but the modeling looks better and better the more data is accumulated and as computer power increases. 20 years ago computer modeling was a much weaker link than today. The uncertainty is way down.
In other words. 20 years ago when we created this hysteria our models were wrong. [i.e. our warming was less than half what the models predicted]. but trust us now the models are better.
 
Actually, the real story here may be solar activity cycles. Read up about the "little ice age", for example. Humans are important--but they are not the whole story.

And the reason some are skeptical about climate change is the politics that go along with it and the changes folks are asking for to fix it.

Here is the first link you find when trying to explain climate change with solar activity. As I said. It would be nice if it were true. Years ago there was a Russian hack who claimed to have proved it, but there's just no correlation.

 
In other words. 20 years ago when we created this hysteria our models were wrong. [i.e. our warming was less than half what the models predicted]. but trust us now the models are better.
No. 20 years ago, the models were correct but the uncertainty in solutions was high enough that skeptics could claim that too much was unknown. Now the models are generally predicting the same thing only there is more data proving excellent agreement and a lot less uncertainty. In other words the skeptics can't actually make a scientific argument against use of the models.
 
In other words. 20 years ago when we created this hysteria our models were wrong. [i.e. our warming was less than half what the models predicted]. but trust us now the models are better.
And by the way, the science and concern about climate change has been in the mainstream news since at least the late 1980s. It has been an actual documented scientific concern since the 1970s. Too many of the climate skeptics like to attack the science by claiming no one had heard of it before Al Gore made a movie about it (Which is an excellent piece of work even if he's not a scientist and is the subject of many uninformed attacks by skeptics.)
 
No. 20 years ago, the models were correct but the uncertainty in solutions was high enough that skeptics could claim that too much was unknown. Now the models are generally predicting the same thing only there is more data proving excellent agreement and a lot less uncertainty. In other words the skeptics can't actually make a scientific argument against use of the models.
Do you disagree that the warming predicted by the IPCC in 1998 was more than double what actually occurred?
 
Do you disagree that the warming predicted by the IPCC in 1998 was more than double what actually occurred?
Global mean temperature the last few years is up by about 1 deg C over the 20th century mean which is in line with the climate models folks were using in the 80s and 90s. Of course those models require inputs, including some guess at how much the amount of greenhouse gases will change over the time of any prediction. Since the scientists can't control that, they have to extrapolate based on the present data. If you take the original predictions out of context, you can distort them like the clowns from Cato did to Hansen.
 
So do you want to get into a technical discussion? Be glad to do so. So far you haven't presented anything but personal attacks and non sequiturs.

I gladly accept your offer. Lets start off with the simplest and first equation they teach you in thermodynamics - let's build the global heat balance.

In + Generation = Consumption + Exit

Don't worry, we can expand the terms to fill in the math in a bit, for now lets define what the major items are. I'll await your response.
 
And by the way, the science and concern about climate change has been in the mainstream news since at least the late 1980s. It has been an actual documented scientific concern since the 1970s. Too many of the climate skeptics like to attack the science by claiming no one had heard of it before Al Gore made a movie about it (Which is an excellent piece of work even if he's not a scientist and is the subject of many uninformed attacks by skeptics.)
Well the real hysteria started with our very own Michael Mann and his hockey stick in 1998. Maybe some stuff in the 80's and the real hysteria in the 70's was global cooling not global warming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Joe95
I gladly accept your offer. Lets start off with the simplest and first equation they teach you in thermodynamics - let's build the global heat balance.

In + Generation = Consumption + Exit

Don't worry, we can expand the terms to fill in the math in a bit, for now lets define what the major items are. I'll await your response.
The energy going "In" gets there by radiation from the sun. Greenhouse gases have a strong effect on how much energy leaves (also by radiation) from the earth "Exit". The balance is very delicate and the terms are nonlinear. So, tipping the balance by a small amount actually leads to a very large long-term consequence.
The amount of energy radiating and striking the Earth from the Sun is not changing (other than the mean-zero fluctuations that we have seen for 1000s of years).
 
The energy going "In" gets there by radiation from the sun. Greenhouse gases have a strong effect on how much energy leaves (also by radiation) from the earth "Exit". The balance is very delicate and the terms are nonlinear. So, tipping the balance by a small amount actually leads to a very large long-term consequence.
The amount of energy radiating and striking the Earth from the Sun is not changing (other than the mean-zero fluctuations that we have seen for 1000s of years).
Also, you are missing an unsteady term.
 
Well the real hysteria started with our very own Michael Mann and his hockey stick in 1998. Maybe some stuff in the 80's and the real hysteria in the 70's was global cooling not global warming.
The correction Mann made to geologic data did not cause "hysteria" and has been validated many times over. Again he may be a favorite target of climate deniers but no serious person who studies the science doubts his credibility or his work.
 
Well the real hysteria started with our very own Michael Mann and his hockey stick in 1998. Maybe some stuff in the 80's and the real hysteria in the 70's was global cooling not global warming.
Also, why is it that people who deny climate science can't just discuss the merits of a question based on data and physics? Instead you have to find a personality to vilify. Then you substitute that vilification and toss in a buzz word or two instead of actually discussing the facts.
I guess this saves you from actually having to be informed and makes it easy to attack those you don't agree with.
It's like how Bill Gates or George Soros are constantly propped up as demonic entities. Again this is just a lazy way to attack ideas you don't like by creating a cult of hatred around a few targets (rich, liberal, elites right?).
 
Also, why is it that people who deny climate science can't just discuss the merits of a question based on data and physics? Instead you have to find a personality to vilify. Then you substitute that vilification and toss in a buzz word or two instead of actually discussing the facts.
I guess this saves you from actually having to be informed and makes it easy to attack those you don't agree with.
It's like how Bill Gates or George Soros are constantly propped up as demonic entities. Again this is just a lazy way to attack ideas you don't like by creating a cult of hatred around a few targets (rich, liberal, elites right?).
And of course this is the exact strategy Hitler used agains his enemies.
 
ADVERTISEMENT