54 responses to New Research Links Tornado Strength, Frequency To Climate Change
Will August 7th, 2014 at 08:03
Sunny outside=AGW
Raining= AGW
Snowing=AGW
Cold outside=AGW
Hot outside=AGW
Foggy outside=AGW
windy outside=AGW
The Dog Farted=AGW
The Check Bounced=AGW
I stubbed my toe=AGW
What else can be blamed on AGW?
Sunny outside=AGW
Raining= AGW
Snowing=AGW
Cold outside=AGW
Hot outside=AGW
Foggy outside=AGW
windy outside=AGW
The Dog Farted=AGW
The Check Bounced=AGW
I stubbed my toe=AGW
What else can be blamed on AGW?
Correlation does not prove causation. Many correlations are simply coincidental. In order to prove causation, you have to explain the mechanism by which one thing causes another.
Via the peer-reviewed Abstract linked above, clearly illustrating the warming mechanism: These changes are interpreted as an increasing proportion of tornadoes occurring on days with many tornadoes.
B) Coincident with these temporal changes are increases in tornado density as defined by the number of tornadoes per area. Trends are insensitive to the begin year of the analysis. The bottom line is that the risk of big tornado days featuring densely concentrated tornado outbreaks is on the rise. The results are broadly consistent with numerical modeling studies that project increases in convective energy within the tornado environment. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-014-2277-3
Looking for correlations, proposing theories to explain correlations, building computer models to test theories, and publishing the results: these are all good things.
Reading a wide selection of actual journal articles is also a good thing. But most people have neither money nor the time to subscribe to the journals and read the articles. So we rely upon summaries provided to us by members of the media who presumably have access to the scholarly papers, time to read them, and sufficient scientific background to understand them and translate the results into layman’s terms.
After graduating college, I worked for five years in a research lab. At one point our lab was approached by a PBS affiliate that wanted to create a video documentary about our research. It was a very positive experience, but our lab director had to constantly work to ensure that the documentary did not accidentally misrepresent or overstate our lab’s capabilities or findings.
It is understandable that journalists would respect and admire the people who are at the cutting edge of any field. But many journalists seem to put scientists on a pedestal, and this often leads them to write articles that oversimplify and overstate what the scientists are actually saying.
If you could sit down and have a beer with the authors of the article linked above, they would probably say something like “We found a correlation between tornados and warming, so naturally we wanted to see if we could find an explanation. As you know, we have been gradually constructing and improving a computerized climate model. The model represents our current understanding of climate processes, but of course that is evolving. When we plugged the numbers into the model, we found that the tornado data were broadly (but not precisely) consistent with the model. So this is encouraging. We will definitely be giving this matter further study.”.
In the article linked above, the phrases “may be”, “might be”, and “appear to be” appear in several places. So I think that this journalist actually did a pretty good job of not overstating the findings.
Until recently, it was widely accepted that the universe was expanding, but at a decreasing rate, and that eventually it would collapse inward. In light of new data, it is now widely accepted that the universe is expanding at an INCREASING rate.
Scientists, and the scientific community, are fallible…not because they’re dishonest, but because they’re working with incomplete and (frequently) ambiguous data.
Knowing that previous temperature and climate data have issues, NOAA has recently completed construction of 114 new stations situated in “pristine” locations around the US. I prefer to believe that this is not just a public relations effort to appease “deniers”, but a genuine response to real issues with previous data collection methods.
Why can’t you find any climate indicators in decline?
A) Because NASA, NOAA & ESA Satellites now survey 97% of Earth and why 97% of all climatologists agree with the obvious facts of (man made) AGW.
Today, it runs programs to obtain and convert data from Defense Department and NOAA satellites as well as from certain European, Japanese and Russian satellites. NASA also sponsors field experiments to provide “ground truth” data to check space instrument performance and to develop new measurement techniques.
Instruments on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites have provided the first global measurements of aerosols in our atmosphere, which come from natural sources such as volcanoes, dust storms and man-made sources such as the burning of fossil fuels http://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_role/
Yes, the satellite data is great. But we’ve only had good satellite data for a decade or two. So we really don’t have a good baseline.
For example, Jason-1 and Jason-2 are the most advanced satellites used to measure sea level today. They were launched in 2001 and 2008, respectively. So with what do we compare their data in order to estimate long-term trends?
Furthermore, satellite data is not a panacea. Ordinary tide gauges, which are still in use, measure the water level continuously, but only at specific locations along the coastline. Satellites cover the entire surface of the earth, but at any given instant, 99% of the earth’s surface is not being observed because the satellites have a very limited field of view.
Jason-1 and Jason-2 each revisits the same place on earth once every ten days. They are separated by half an orbital cycle, so each place on earth is visited once every five days. That’s a very long sampling period, and it raises the question of temporal aliasing.
Aliasing can occur when data are sampled with insufficient frequency. For example, if you measured the outdoor temperature once every 25 hours, and then plotted the data, you would get a waveform with a period of 24 days. But if you sampled the temperature once every 6 hours, you would get the (correct) waveform having a period of one day.
In a paper entitled “The Effects of Temporal Aliasing in Satellite Altimetry”, authors Ge Chen and Hui Lin concluded:
“Evidence and examples are presented to demonstrate the fact that aliasing could be a common feature in altimeter-measured wave propagation and mesoscale dynamics. These observations might be misunderstood if alias consequences are overlooked. Finally, it should be pointed out that the alias effect is an intrinsic feature in satellite altimetry which may, in some cases, lead to systematic errors. It seems to us that the overall performance of a satellite altimeter cannot be fully evaluated without taking into account its alias effect.”
I’m sorry to break it to you, but there are serious limitations to the satellite data.
You’re opinions obfuscate the well proven facts of AGW agreed to by 97% of all Climatologists.
Again: Why can’t you find any climate indicators in decline? Inversely: “The linear rate of sea ice decline for May over the 1979 to 2010 period is now -2.41% per decade.” https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
Time history of atmospheric carbon dioxide from 800,000 years ago until January, 2012. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html
Robert M. Snyder’s opinions and crackheads apparently share the same credibility ratings.
Yuo’ve provided Zip. Don’t blame others for your lack of credibile opinions.
Exhibit A) Jason 2 satellite orbits at an Altitude of 1,336 km Launch into the same orbit as Jason 1 and maintains the same measurement accuracy of Jason (3.3 cm) with a goal of achieving 2.5 cm. It also maintains the stability of the global mean sea level measurement with a drift less than 1 mm/year over the life of the mission. http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/measuring-sea-level.html
It’s your own fault for not posting a single thing proving your climate denial is based upon anything other than errant GOP TV.
Lol! Anthony Watts studied Electrical Engineering and Meteorology at Purdue University, but has been unwilling to state whether he graduated. [1], [2]
He is a former television meteorologist.
Background: Anthony Watts is best known as the founder and editor of the popular Watts Up With That(WUWT), a blog that primarily publishes articles skeptical of climate change. What’sUpWithShitHeads.com http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts
Did you even bother to learn where your 97% number came from? Naw, probably not… People like you only acknowledge facts that fit with your preconceived notions and agendas…
Do you really believe that raising a minor greenhouse gas from 3 parts in 10,000 to 4, or even 5 parts in 10,000 over a few hundred years is going to doom us all? Got any proof? Of course not, because there is none.
Did you bother to read the NASA link, or NASA’s excerpt I posted for you? Instead you relied on some non-climate scientist delusional’s “Barry Woods” on an ex-TV weatherman’s debunked blog.
Here’s somebody else explaining their drivel to you: -Besieged deniers Anthony Watts and Barry Woods engage in wishful thinking @-wattsupwiththat
Science deniers are the same as everyone else in the world in regard to confirmation bias. Well, maybe they have it worse than most of us when it comes to climate science. Still, everyone suffers confirmation bias to some degree.
Today Anthony Watts and his correspondent, Barry Woods, have caught a bad case of it (archived here). Most of Anthony’s WUWT readers haven’t. Anthony and Barry think that Mike Hulme is disputing the fact that 97% plus of scientists who do research relating in any way to climate agree that humans are causing global warming. But Mike Hulme is not disputing that at all. http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/besieged-deniers-anthony-watts-and.html
Good luck trying to debunk NASA/NOAA et al by trying to find any climate indicators in decline. (pick-up your #2 pencil this timed test begins now 12 AM EST:)
B) http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators/
C) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/ <-"Human Influence" is why '80% of modern global warming is caused by human burning of fossil fuels with 20% caused by human deforestation.'-NASA/NOAA. (Put down your #2 pencil this timed test is over now at 12:15 AM EST:)
Nice glib response but not correct. Dr. Elsner and coauthors have demonstrated a correlation between a decrease in the number of days with one tornado and an increase in the number of days with more than one. They also demonstrated a correlation between increasing storm intensity over the time span of their data and a trend towards concentration of tornadoes in one location. There is no causation involved. These relationships are observational and inherent in the data. The record of the storms is hard fact. The scientists have assembled a large enough data set, over a sufficiently long period of time to reveal trends. The “correlation” you seem to be bothered by is that these trends are consistent with predictions made by other climatic models. However, the object of their paper was not to ascribe cause but to document the qualitative trends in tornado data and point out that these trends are consistent with predictions made by current climate models.
You either misunderstood the gist of the abstract or you are intentionally misrepresenting their work.
“The “correlation” you seem to be bothered by is that these trends are consistent with predictions made by other climatic models.”
To the contrary. I am glad that this research is being done. I am in the habit of being skeptical of all scientific claims, regardless of whether they happen to support a pro-AGW view or an anti-AGW view.
What bothers me is when people with a strongly pro-AGW or anti-AGW bias see every scientific paper as “proof” of their position.
You still don’t get it. The authors, or myself, did not claim any proof. They point out that their observations are consistent with model predictions. That is not a claim of proof.
IMO you’re being disingenuous. Your original post was clearly intended to try to discredit the paper. Now you’re trying to walk that back and claim your glad for the research. Baloney.
In my original post, I made the following 5 statements:
1. “It appears that the authors found a correlation.”
2. “Finding correlations is easy.”
3. “Correlation does not prove causation.”
4. “Many correlations are simply coincidental.”
5. “In order to prove causation, you have to explain the mechanism by which one thing causes another.”
Statement #2 is subjective. The remaining 4 statements are factually true. I’m guessing that statement #5 is the one that bothers you. The “you” in that statement was intended to refer to the reader, but you probably thought I was referring to the researchers, as if they were claiming to have proven something. That was not my intent.
You refer to the authors in the 2nd sentence. Then your statements about correlation and causation and the link to whacky correlations and bad conclusions. The correlation you were making seemed pretty obvious to me (and at least 2 others who read your post). Sentences 2, 3, & 4 may be true but by following them with the link you’re suggesting any or all apply to the conclusions in the paper. I believe they’re a smokescreen for the unspoken doubt you’re implying. The only person or group “you” in the final sentence could be referring to is the authors, certainly not the reader. That whole post seems at odds with your replies to Obe. Skepticism is great but it seemed beyond that.
“The only person or group “you” in the final sentence could be referring to is the authors, certainly not the reader.”
Okay, we’re really parsing words here. I intended “you” to mean “someone” or “the person reading this”. For example, when someone writes “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.”, the word “you” is generally understood to mean “the reader” or “someone”.
Someone can lead a horse to water…
You, the reader, can lead a horse to water…
Correlation does not prove causation. Many correlations are simply coincidental. In order to prove causation, you have to explain the mechanism by which one thing causes another.
Via the peer-reviewed Abstract linked above, clearly illustrating the warming mechanism: These changes are interpreted as an increasing proportion of tornadoes occurring on days with many tornadoes.
B) Coincident with these temporal changes are increases in tornado density as defined by the number of tornadoes per area. Trends are insensitive to the begin year of the analysis. The bottom line is that the risk of big tornado days featuring densely concentrated tornado outbreaks is on the rise. The results are broadly consistent with numerical modeling studies that project increases in convective energy within the tornado environment. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-014-2277-3
Looking for correlations, proposing theories to explain correlations, building computer models to test theories, and publishing the results: these are all good things.
Reading a wide selection of actual journal articles is also a good thing. But most people have neither money nor the time to subscribe to the journals and read the articles. So we rely upon summaries provided to us by members of the media who presumably have access to the scholarly papers, time to read them, and sufficient scientific background to understand them and translate the results into layman’s terms.
After graduating college, I worked for five years in a research lab. At one point our lab was approached by a PBS affiliate that wanted to create a video documentary about our research. It was a very positive experience, but our lab director had to constantly work to ensure that the documentary did not accidentally misrepresent or overstate our lab’s capabilities or findings.
It is understandable that journalists would respect and admire the people who are at the cutting edge of any field. But many journalists seem to put scientists on a pedestal, and this often leads them to write articles that oversimplify and overstate what the scientists are actually saying.
If you could sit down and have a beer with the authors of the article linked above, they would probably say something like “We found a correlation between tornados and warming, so naturally we wanted to see if we could find an explanation. As you know, we have been gradually constructing and improving a computerized climate model. The model represents our current understanding of climate processes, but of course that is evolving. When we plugged the numbers into the model, we found that the tornado data were broadly (but not precisely) consistent with the model. So this is encouraging. We will definitely be giving this matter further study.”.
In the article linked above, the phrases “may be”, “might be”, and “appear to be” appear in several places. So I think that this journalist actually did a pretty good job of not overstating the findings.
Until recently, it was widely accepted that the universe was expanding, but at a decreasing rate, and that eventually it would collapse inward. In light of new data, it is now widely accepted that the universe is expanding at an INCREASING rate.
Scientists, and the scientific community, are fallible…not because they’re dishonest, but because they’re working with incomplete and (frequently) ambiguous data.
Knowing that previous temperature and climate data have issues, NOAA has recently completed construction of 114 new stations situated in “pristine” locations around the US. I prefer to believe that this is not just a public relations effort to appease “deniers”, but a genuine response to real issues with previous data collection methods.
Why can’t you find any climate indicators in decline?
A) Because NASA, NOAA & ESA Satellites now survey 97% of Earth and that’s why 97% of all climatologists agree with the obvious facts of (man made) AGW. Even the Pentagon knows your climate illiteracy is only espoused by Big Oil paid buffoons.
Today, NASA runs programs to obtain and convert data from Defense Department and NOAA satellites as well as from certain European, Japanese and Russian satellites. NASA also sponsors field experiments to provide “ground truth” data to check space instrument performance and to develop new measurement techniques.
Instruments on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites have provided the first global measurements of aerosols in our atmosphere, which come from natural sources such as volcanoes, dust storms and man-made sources such as the burning of fossil fuels http://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_role/
Yes, the satellite data is great. But we’ve only had good satellite data for a decade or two. So we really don’t have a good baseline.
For example, Jason-1 and Jason-2 are the most advanced satellites used to measure sea level today. They were launched in 2001 and 2008, respectively. So with what do we compare their data in order to estimate long-term trends?
Furthermore, satellite data is not a panacea. Ordinary tide gauges, which are still in use, measure the water level continuously, but only at specific locations along the coastline. Satellites cover the entire surface of the earth, but at any given instant, 99% of the earth’s surface is not being observed because the satellites have a very limited field of view.
Jason-1 and Jason-2 each revisits the same place on earth once every ten days. They are separated by half an orbital cycle, so each place on earth is visited once every five days. That’s a very long sampling period, and it raises the question of temporal aliasing.
Aliasing can occur when data are sampled with insufficient frequency. For example, if you measured the outdoor temperature once every 25 hours, and then plotted the data, you would get a waveform with a period of 24 days. But if you sampled the temperature once every 6 hours, you would get the (correct) waveform having a period of one day.
In a paper entitled “The Effects of Temporal Aliasing in Satellite Altimetry”, authors Ge Chen and Hui Lin concluded:
“Evidence and examples are presented to demonstrate the fact that aliasing could be a common feature in altimeter-measured wave propagation and mesoscale dynamics. These observations might be misunderstood if alias consequences are overlooked. Finally, it should be pointed out that the alias effect is an intrinsic feature in satellite altimetry which may, in some cases, lead to systematic errors. It seems to us that the overall performance of a satellite altimeter cannot be fully evaluated without taking into account its alias effect.”
I’m sorry to break it to you, but there are serious limitations to the satellite data.
You’re opinions obfuscate the well proven facts of AGW agreed to by 97% of all Climatologists.
Again: Why can’t you find any climate indicators in decline? Inversely: “The linear rate of sea ice decline for May over the 1979 to 2010 period is now -2.41% per decade.” https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
Time history of atmospheric carbon dioxide from 800,000 years ago until January, 2012. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html
Robert M. Snyder’s opinions and those of tea party Big Oil Fed climate deniers apparently share the same lack of any worthwhile credibility ratings.
3rd Time. Again: Why can’t you find any climate indicators in decline?
Don’t blame others for your lacking credibility in proving your ‘opinions.’ E.g. Exhibit A) Jason 2 satellite orbits at an Altitude of 1,336 km. Launched into the same orbit as Jason 1, maintaining the same measurement accuracy of Jason (3.3 cm) with a goal of achieving 2.5 cm. It also maintains the stability of the global mean sea level measurement with a drift less than 1 mm/year over the life of the mission. http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/measuring-sea-level.html
It’s your own fault for not posting a single thing proving your climate denial is based upon anything other than errant GOP TV.
Lol! Vs. Anthony Watts studied Electrical Engineering and Meteorology at Purdue University, but has been unwilling to state whether he graduated. [1], [2] He is a former television meteorologist.
Background: -Anthony Watts is best known as the founder and editor of the Watts Up With That(WUWT), a blog that primarily publishes articles skeptical of climate change. WhatsUpWithShitHeads.com http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts
“97% of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1 and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.”-NASA et al further agree ‘80% of modern global warming increases are caused by human burning of fossil fuels with 20% from human deforestation’-NASA, NOAA, UK MET, IPPC, et al.
Did you even bother to learn where your 97% number came from? Naw, probably not… People like you only acknowledge facts that fit with your preconceived notions and agendas…
Do you really believe that raising a minor greenhouse gas from 3 parts in 10,000 to 4, or even 5 parts in 10,000 over a few hundred years is going to doom us all? Got any proof? Of course not, because there is none.
Did you bother to read the NASA link, or NASA’s excerpt I posted for you? Instead you relied on some non-climate scientist delusional’s “Barry Woods” on an ex-TV weatherman’s debunked blog.
Here’s somebody else explaining their ‘97%’ drivel to you: -Besieged deniers Anthony Watts and Barry Woods engage in wishful thinking @-wattsupwiththat
Science deniers are the same as everyone else in the world in regard to confirmation bias. Well, maybe they have it worse than most of us when it comes to climate science. Still, everyone suffers confirmation bias to some degree.
Today Anthony Watts and his correspondent, Barry Woods, have caught a bad case of it (archived here). Most of Anthony’s WUWT readers haven’t. Anthony and Barry think that Mike Hulme is disputing the fact that 97% plus of scientists who do research relating in any way to climate agree that humans are causing global warming. But Mike Hulme is not disputing that at all. http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/besieged-deniers-anthony-watts-and.html
(Put down your #2 pencil. This timed test is over now.) If you learned nothing? Then you're scientifically & Climate illiterate, likely believing in an impossible 6,000 year old Earth & universe too.
Nice glib response but not correct. Dr. Elsner and coauthors have demonstrated a correlation between a decrease in the number of days with one tornado and an increase in the number of days with more than one. They also demonstrated a correlation between increasing storm intensity over the time span of their data and a trend towards concentration of tornadoes in one location. There is no causation involved. These relationships are observational and inherent in the data. The record of the storms is hard fact. The scientists have assembled a large enough data set, over a sufficiently long period of time to reveal trends. The “correlation” you seem to be bothered by is that these trends are consistent with predictions made by other climatic models. However, the object of their paper was not to ascribe cause but to document the qualitative trends in tornado data and point out that these trends are consistent with predictions made by current climate models.
You either misunderstood the gist of the abstract or you are intentionally misrepresenting their work.
“The “correlation” you seem to be bothered by is that these trends are consistent with predictions made by other climatic models.”
To the contrary. I am glad that this research is being done. I am in the habit of being skeptical of all scientific claims, regardless of whether they happen to support a pro-AGW view or an anti-AGW view.
What bothers me is when people with a strongly pro-AGW or anti-AGW bias see every scientific paper as “proof” of their position.
You still don’t get it. The authors, or myself, did not claim any proof. They point out that their observations are consistent with model predictions. That is not a claim of proof.
IMO you’re being disingenuous. Your original post was clearly intended to try to discredit the paper. Now you’re trying to walk that back and claim your glad for the research. Baloney.
In my original post, I made the following 5 statements:
1. “It appears that the authors found a correlation.”
2. “Finding correlations is easy.”
3. “Correlation does not prove causation.”
4. “Many correlations are simply coincidental.”
5. “In order to prove causation, you have to explain the mechanism by which one thing causes another.”
Statement #2 is subjective. The remaining 4 statements are factually true. I’m guessing that statement #5 is the one that bothers you. The “you” in that statement was intended to refer to the reader, but you probably thought I was referring to the researchers, as if they were claiming to have proven something. That was not my intent.
You refer to the authors in the 2nd sentence. Then your statements about correlation and causation and the link to whacky correlations and bad conclusions. The correlation you were making seemed pretty obvious to me (and at least 2 others who read your post). Sentences 2, 3, & 4 may be true but by following them with the link you’re suggesting any or all apply to the conclusions in the paper. I believe they’re a smokescreen for the unspoken doubt you’re implying. The only person or group “you” in the final sentence could be referring to is the authors, certainly not the reader. That whole post seems at odds with your replies to Obe. Skepticism is great but it seemed beyond that.
“The only person or group “you” in the final sentence could be referring to is the authors, certainly not the reader.”
Okay, we’re really parsing words here. I intended “you” to mean “someone” or “the person reading this”. For example, when someone writes “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.”, the word “you” is generally understood to mean “the reader” or “someone”.
Someone can lead a horse to water…
You, the reader, can lead a horse to water…
Worst drought in history hits west coast, CO monsoons cause flooding over land scorched for 2 solid years by extreme heat, drought and fire – pine bark beetle now has two full hatching seasons instead of none – it used to be too cold for them..And now we have a new addition that never could live here before – Ash bark beetle)now turned to extreme snow and rains (I won’t mention the mountain top tornadoes that were considered extremely rare until we started getting a few every summer over the past couple of years)..then there are the 2 hurricanes headed for Honolulu (a phenomena never known to happen in known history …even a single hurricane on the islands is a fairly infrequent occurrence – 1 every 5 to 10 years. The Big Island has never been hit by a hurricane but we have one of two rushing straight to it))…Flooded London, snow on the Med and Ice in Mexico City…Nah – no reason to think we shifted the environment enough to cause dramatic effects.
Hold onto your ass…The 6th extinction is in full swing – All hail Kali – her Yuga is upon us
Worst drought in history hits west coast, CO monsoons cause flooding over land scorched for 2 solid years by extreme heat, drought and fire – pine bark beetle now has two full hatching seasons instead of none – it used to be too cold for them..And now we have a new addition that never could live here before – Ash borer)now turned to extreme snow and rains (I won’t mention the mountain top tornadoes that were considered extremely rare until we started getting a few every summer over the past couple of years)..then there are the 2 hurricanes headed for Honolulu (a phenomena never known to happen in known history …even a single hurricane on the islands is a fairly infrequent occurrence – 1 every 5 to 10 years. The Big Island has never been hit by a hurricane but we have one of two rushing straight to it))…Flooded London, snow on the Med and Ice in Mexico City…Nah – no reason to think we shifted the environment enough to cause dramatic effects.
Hold onto your ass…The 6th extinction is in full swing – All hail Kali – her Yuga is upon us
Will August 7th, 2014 at 08:03
Sunny outside=AGW
Raining= AGW
Snowing=AGW
Cold outside=AGW
Hot outside=AGW
Foggy outside=AGW
windy outside=AGW
The Dog Farted=AGW
The Check Bounced=AGW
I stubbed my toe=AGW
What else can be blamed on AGW?
mea_mark August 7th, 2014 at 09:26
Busted Dude! See ya next incarnation, Drinkthekoolaid. Banned again.
Anomaly 100 August 7th, 2014 at 09:27
You’re fast.
tiredoftea August 7th, 2014 at 22:55
Your stupidity?
Will August 7th, 2014 at 08:03
Sunny outside=AGW
Raining= AGW
Snowing=AGW
Cold outside=AGW
Hot outside=AGW
Foggy outside=AGW
windy outside=AGW
The Dog Farted=AGW
The Check Bounced=AGW
I stubbed my toe=AGW
What else can be blamed on AGW?
mea_mark August 7th, 2014 at 09:26
Busted Dude! See ya next incarnation, Drinkthekoolaid. Banned again.
Anomaly 100 August 7th, 2014 at 09:27
You’re fast.
tiredoftea August 7th, 2014 at 22:55
Your stupidity?
Roctuna August 7th, 2014 at 08:19
One thing we can’t blame on AGW is the ignorance of people who won’t consider scientific research but prefer to spout worn out cliches.
Roctuna August 7th, 2014 at 08:19
One thing we can’t blame on AGW is the ignorance of people who won’t consider scientific research but prefer to spout worn out cliches.
Robert M. Snyder August 7th, 2014 at 10:03
I read the abstract of the linked article. It appears that the authors found a correlation. Finding correlations is easy.
For example: http://tylervigen.com/
Correlation does not prove causation. Many correlations are simply coincidental. In order to prove causation, you have to explain the mechanism by which one thing causes another.
Obewon August 7th, 2014 at 10:35
Via the peer-reviewed Abstract linked above, clearly illustrating the warming mechanism: These changes are interpreted as an increasing proportion of tornadoes occurring on days with many tornadoes.
B) Coincident with these temporal changes are increases in tornado density as defined by the number of tornadoes per area. Trends are insensitive to the begin year of the analysis. The bottom line is that the risk of big tornado days featuring densely concentrated tornado outbreaks is on the rise. The results are broadly consistent with numerical modeling studies that project increases in convective energy within the tornado environment. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-014-2277-3
Robert M. Snyder August 7th, 2014 at 11:35
Looking for correlations, proposing theories to explain correlations, building computer models to test theories, and publishing the results: these are all good things.
Reading a wide selection of actual journal articles is also a good thing. But most people have neither money nor the time to subscribe to the journals and read the articles. So we rely upon summaries provided to us by members of the media who presumably have access to the scholarly papers, time to read them, and sufficient scientific background to understand them and translate the results into layman’s terms.
After graduating college, I worked for five years in a research lab. At one point our lab was approached by a PBS affiliate that wanted to create a video documentary about our research. It was a very positive experience, but our lab director had to constantly work to ensure that the documentary did not accidentally misrepresent or overstate our lab’s capabilities or findings.
It is understandable that journalists would respect and admire the people who are at the cutting edge of any field. But many journalists seem to put scientists on a pedestal, and this often leads them to write articles that oversimplify and overstate what the scientists are actually saying.
If you could sit down and have a beer with the authors of the article linked above, they would probably say something like “We found a correlation between tornados and warming, so naturally we wanted to see if we could find an explanation. As you know, we have been gradually constructing and improving a computerized climate model. The model represents our current understanding of climate processes, but of course that is evolving. When we plugged the numbers into the model, we found that the tornado data were broadly (but not precisely) consistent with the model. So this is encouraging. We will definitely be giving this matter further study.”.
In the article linked above, the phrases “may be”, “might be”, and “appear to be” appear in several places. So I think that this journalist actually did a pretty good job of not overstating the findings.
Obewon August 7th, 2014 at 14:19
Similarly you ignore the proven mechanism of AGW’s 1.3 Million year+ records via every NASA & NOAA climate indicator e.g. NOAA’s data for land and ocean temperature anomalies shows that 14 of the past 15 years were the hottest on record. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/feb/15/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-12-hottest-years-record-have-com/ A) http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators/ B) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/ <-"Human Influence" is why '80% of modern global warming is caused by human burning of fossil fuels with 20% caused by human deforestation.'-NASA/NOAA.
Robert M. Snyder August 7th, 2014 at 14:41
Until recently, it was widely accepted that the universe was expanding, but at a decreasing rate, and that eventually it would collapse inward. In light of new data, it is now widely accepted that the universe is expanding at an INCREASING rate.
Scientists, and the scientific community, are fallible…not because they’re dishonest, but because they’re working with incomplete and (frequently) ambiguous data.
Knowing that previous temperature and climate data have issues, NOAA has recently completed construction of 114 new stations situated in “pristine” locations around the US. I prefer to believe that this is not just a public relations effort to appease “deniers”, but a genuine response to real issues with previous data collection methods.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/
Obewon August 7th, 2014 at 15:16
Why can’t you find any climate indicators in decline?
A) Because NASA, NOAA & ESA Satellites now survey 97% of Earth and why 97% of all climatologists agree with the obvious facts of (man made) AGW.
Today, it runs programs to obtain and convert data from Defense Department and NOAA satellites as well as from certain European, Japanese and Russian satellites. NASA also sponsors field experiments to provide “ground truth” data to check space instrument performance and to develop new measurement techniques.
Instruments on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites have provided the first global measurements of aerosols in our atmosphere, which come from natural sources such as volcanoes, dust storms and man-made sources such as the burning of fossil fuels http://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_role/
Robert M. Snyder August 7th, 2014 at 20:07
Yes, the satellite data is great. But we’ve only had good satellite data for a decade or two. So we really don’t have a good baseline.
For example, Jason-1 and Jason-2 are the most advanced satellites used to measure sea level today. They were launched in 2001 and 2008, respectively. So with what do we compare their data in order to estimate long-term trends?
Furthermore, satellite data is not a panacea. Ordinary tide gauges, which are still in use, measure the water level continuously, but only at specific locations along the coastline. Satellites cover the entire surface of the earth, but at any given instant, 99% of the earth’s surface is not being observed because the satellites have a very limited field of view.
Jason-1 and Jason-2 each revisits the same place on earth once every ten days. They are separated by half an orbital cycle, so each place on earth is visited once every five days. That’s a very long sampling period, and it raises the question of temporal aliasing.
Aliasing can occur when data are sampled with insufficient frequency. For example, if you measured the outdoor temperature once every 25 hours, and then plotted the data, you would get a waveform with a period of 24 days. But if you sampled the temperature once every 6 hours, you would get the (correct) waveform having a period of one day.
In a paper entitled “The Effects of Temporal Aliasing in Satellite Altimetry”, authors Ge Chen and Hui Lin concluded:
“Evidence and examples are presented to demonstrate the fact that aliasing could be a common feature in altimeter-measured wave propagation and mesoscale dynamics. These observations might be misunderstood if alias consequences are overlooked. Finally, it should be pointed out that the alias effect is an intrinsic feature in satellite altimetry which may, in some cases, lead to systematic errors. It seems to us that the overall performance of a satellite altimeter cannot be fully evaluated without taking into account its alias effect.”
I’m sorry to break it to you, but there are serious limitations to the satellite data.
Obewon August 7th, 2014 at 21:15
You’re opinions obfuscate the well proven facts of AGW agreed to by 97% of all Climatologists.
Again: Why can’t you find any climate indicators in decline? Inversely: “The linear rate of sea ice decline for May over the 1979 to 2010 period is now -2.41% per decade.” https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
Time history of atmospheric carbon dioxide from 800,000 years ago until January, 2012. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html
Robert M. Snyder’s opinions and crackheads apparently share the same credibility ratings.
Robert M. Snyder August 7th, 2014 at 21:25
If you can’t engage in a discussion on the issues without resorting to personal attacks on my character, then I’m not willing to continue.
Obewon August 7th, 2014 at 21:29
Yuo’ve provided Zip. Don’t blame others for your lack of credibile opinions.
Exhibit A) Jason 2 satellite orbits at an Altitude of 1,336 km Launch into the same orbit as Jason 1 and maintains the same measurement accuracy of Jason (3.3 cm) with a goal of achieving 2.5 cm. It also maintains the stability of the global mean sea level measurement with a drift less than 1 mm/year over the life of the mission. http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/measuring-sea-level.html
It’s your own fault for not posting a single thing proving your climate denial is based upon anything other than errant GOP TV.
Rocket Don August 10th, 2014 at 22:04
Stop with the 97% of all climatologists thing – it was debunked years ago.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/
Obewon August 10th, 2014 at 22:14
Lol! Anthony Watts studied Electrical Engineering and Meteorology at Purdue University, but has been unwilling to state whether he graduated. [1], [2]
He is a former television meteorologist.
Background: Anthony Watts is best known as the founder and editor of the popular Watts Up With That(WUWT), a blog that primarily publishes articles skeptical of climate change. What’sUpWithShitHeads.com http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts
Rocket Don August 10th, 2014 at 23:35
Did you even bother to learn where your 97% number came from? Naw, probably not… People like you only acknowledge facts that fit with your preconceived notions and agendas…
Do you really believe that raising a minor greenhouse gas from 3 parts in 10,000 to 4, or even 5 parts in 10,000 over a few hundred years is going to doom us all? Got any proof? Of course not, because there is none.
But hey, the kool-aid is sweet is it not?
Obewon August 10th, 2014 at 23:50
Did you bother to read the NASA link, or NASA’s excerpt I posted for you? Instead you relied on some non-climate scientist delusional’s “Barry Woods” on an ex-TV weatherman’s debunked blog.
Here’s somebody else explaining their drivel to you: -Besieged deniers Anthony Watts and Barry Woods engage in wishful thinking @-wattsupwiththat
Science deniers are the same as everyone else in the world in regard to confirmation bias. Well, maybe they have it worse than most of us when it comes to climate science. Still, everyone suffers confirmation bias to some degree.
Today Anthony Watts and his correspondent, Barry Woods, have caught a bad case of it (archived here). Most of Anthony’s WUWT readers haven’t. Anthony and Barry think that Mike Hulme is disputing the fact that 97% plus of scientists who do research relating in any way to climate agree that humans are causing global warming. But Mike Hulme is not disputing that at all. http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/besieged-deniers-anthony-watts-and.html
Obewon August 10th, 2014 at 23:59
Good luck trying to debunk NASA/NOAA et al by trying to find any climate indicators in decline. (pick-up your #2 pencil this timed test begins now 12 AM EST:)
A) 1.3 Million year+ records via NASA & NOAA climate indicators e.g. NOAA’s data for land and ocean temperature anomalies shows that 14 of the past 15 years were the hottest on record. Linked herein http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/feb/15/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-12-hottest-years-record-have-com/
B) http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators/
C) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/ <-"Human Influence" is why '80% of modern global warming is caused by human burning of fossil fuels with 20% caused by human deforestation.'-NASA/NOAA. (Put down your #2 pencil this timed test is over now at 12:15 AM EST:)
Roctuna August 7th, 2014 at 11:11
Nice glib response but not correct. Dr. Elsner and coauthors have demonstrated a correlation between a decrease in the number of days with one tornado and an increase in the number of days with more than one. They also demonstrated a correlation between increasing storm intensity over the time span of their data and a trend towards concentration of tornadoes in one location. There is no causation involved. These relationships are observational and inherent in the data. The record of the storms is hard fact. The scientists have assembled a large enough data set, over a sufficiently long period of time to reveal trends. The “correlation” you seem to be bothered by is that these trends are consistent with predictions made by other climatic models. However, the object of their paper was not to ascribe cause but to document the qualitative trends in tornado data and point out that these trends are consistent with predictions made by current climate models.
You either misunderstood the gist of the abstract or you are intentionally misrepresenting their work.
Robert M. Snyder August 7th, 2014 at 11:56
“The “correlation” you seem to be bothered by is that these trends are consistent with predictions made by other climatic models.”
To the contrary. I am glad that this research is being done. I am in the habit of being skeptical of all scientific claims, regardless of whether they happen to support a pro-AGW view or an anti-AGW view.
What bothers me is when people with a strongly pro-AGW or anti-AGW bias see every scientific paper as “proof” of their position.
Roctuna August 7th, 2014 at 12:01
You still don’t get it. The authors, or myself, did not claim any proof. They point out that their observations are consistent with model predictions. That is not a claim of proof.
IMO you’re being disingenuous. Your original post was clearly intended to try to discredit the paper. Now you’re trying to walk that back and claim your glad for the research. Baloney.
Robert M. Snyder August 7th, 2014 at 12:10
In my original post, I made the following 5 statements:
1. “It appears that the authors found a correlation.”
2. “Finding correlations is easy.”
3. “Correlation does not prove causation.”
4. “Many correlations are simply coincidental.”
5. “In order to prove causation, you have to explain the mechanism by which one thing causes another.”
Statement #2 is subjective. The remaining 4 statements are factually true. I’m guessing that statement #5 is the one that bothers you. The “you” in that statement was intended to refer to the reader, but you probably thought I was referring to the researchers, as if they were claiming to have proven something. That was not my intent.
Roctuna August 7th, 2014 at 19:17
You refer to the authors in the 2nd sentence. Then your statements about correlation and causation and the link to whacky correlations and bad conclusions. The correlation you were making seemed pretty obvious to me (and at least 2 others who read your post). Sentences 2, 3, & 4 may be true but by following them with the link you’re suggesting any or all apply to the conclusions in the paper. I believe they’re a smokescreen for the unspoken doubt you’re implying. The only person or group “you” in the final sentence could be referring to is the authors, certainly not the reader. That whole post seems at odds with your replies to Obe. Skepticism is great but it seemed beyond that.
Robert M. Snyder August 7th, 2014 at 19:43
“The only person or group “you” in the final sentence could be referring to is the authors, certainly not the reader.”
Okay, we’re really parsing words here. I intended “you” to mean “someone” or “the person reading this”. For example, when someone writes “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.”, the word “you” is generally understood to mean “the reader” or “someone”.
Someone can lead a horse to water…
You, the reader, can lead a horse to water…
Robert M. Snyder August 7th, 2014 at 10:03
I read the abstract of the linked article. It appears that the authors found a correlation. Finding correlations is easy.
For example: http://tylervigen.com/
Correlation does not prove causation. Many correlations are simply coincidental. In order to prove causation, you have to explain the mechanism by which one thing causes another.
Obewon August 7th, 2014 at 10:35
Via the peer-reviewed Abstract linked above, clearly illustrating the warming mechanism: These changes are interpreted as an increasing proportion of tornadoes occurring on days with many tornadoes.
B) Coincident with these temporal changes are increases in tornado density as defined by the number of tornadoes per area. Trends are insensitive to the begin year of the analysis. The bottom line is that the risk of big tornado days featuring densely concentrated tornado outbreaks is on the rise. The results are broadly consistent with numerical modeling studies that project increases in convective energy within the tornado environment. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-014-2277-3
Robert M. Snyder August 7th, 2014 at 11:35
Looking for correlations, proposing theories to explain correlations, building computer models to test theories, and publishing the results: these are all good things.
Reading a wide selection of actual journal articles is also a good thing. But most people have neither money nor the time to subscribe to the journals and read the articles. So we rely upon summaries provided to us by members of the media who presumably have access to the scholarly papers, time to read them, and sufficient scientific background to understand them and translate the results into layman’s terms.
After graduating college, I worked for five years in a research lab. At one point our lab was approached by a PBS affiliate that wanted to create a video documentary about our research. It was a very positive experience, but our lab director had to constantly work to ensure that the documentary did not accidentally misrepresent or overstate our lab’s capabilities or findings.
It is understandable that journalists would respect and admire the people who are at the cutting edge of any field. But many journalists seem to put scientists on a pedestal, and this often leads them to write articles that oversimplify and overstate what the scientists are actually saying.
If you could sit down and have a beer with the authors of the article linked above, they would probably say something like “We found a correlation between tornados and warming, so naturally we wanted to see if we could find an explanation. As you know, we have been gradually constructing and improving a computerized climate model. The model represents our current understanding of climate processes, but of course that is evolving. When we plugged the numbers into the model, we found that the tornado data were broadly (but not precisely) consistent with the model. So this is encouraging. We will definitely be giving this matter further study.”.
In the article linked above, the phrases “may be”, “might be”, and “appear to be” appear in several places. So I think that this journalist actually did a pretty good job of not overstating the findings.
Obewon August 7th, 2014 at 14:19
Similarly you ignore the proven mechanism of AGW’s 1.3 Million year+ records via NASA & NOAA climate indicators e.g. NOAA’s data for land and ocean temperature anomalies shows that 14 of the past 15 years were the hottest on record. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/feb/15/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-12-hottest-years-record-have-com/ A) http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators/ B) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/ <-"Human Influence" is why '80% of modern global warming is caused by human burning of fossil fuels with 20% caused by human deforestation.'-NASA/NOAA.
Robert M. Snyder August 7th, 2014 at 14:41
Until recently, it was widely accepted that the universe was expanding, but at a decreasing rate, and that eventually it would collapse inward. In light of new data, it is now widely accepted that the universe is expanding at an INCREASING rate.
Scientists, and the scientific community, are fallible…not because they’re dishonest, but because they’re working with incomplete and (frequently) ambiguous data.
Knowing that previous temperature and climate data have issues, NOAA has recently completed construction of 114 new stations situated in “pristine” locations around the US. I prefer to believe that this is not just a public relations effort to appease “deniers”, but a genuine response to real issues with previous data collection methods.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/
Obewon August 7th, 2014 at 15:16
Why can’t you find any climate indicators in decline?
A) Because NASA, NOAA & ESA Satellites now survey 97% of Earth and that’s why 97% of all climatologists agree with the obvious facts of (man made) AGW. Even the Pentagon knows your climate illiteracy is only espoused by Big Oil paid buffoons.
Today, NASA runs programs to obtain and convert data from Defense Department and NOAA satellites as well as from certain European, Japanese and Russian satellites. NASA also sponsors field experiments to provide “ground truth” data to check space instrument performance and to develop new measurement techniques.
Instruments on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites have provided the first global measurements of aerosols in our atmosphere, which come from natural sources such as volcanoes, dust storms and man-made sources such as the burning of fossil fuels http://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_role/
Robert M. Snyder August 7th, 2014 at 20:07
Yes, the satellite data is great. But we’ve only had good satellite data for a decade or two. So we really don’t have a good baseline.
For example, Jason-1 and Jason-2 are the most advanced satellites used to measure sea level today. They were launched in 2001 and 2008, respectively. So with what do we compare their data in order to estimate long-term trends?
Furthermore, satellite data is not a panacea. Ordinary tide gauges, which are still in use, measure the water level continuously, but only at specific locations along the coastline. Satellites cover the entire surface of the earth, but at any given instant, 99% of the earth’s surface is not being observed because the satellites have a very limited field of view.
Jason-1 and Jason-2 each revisits the same place on earth once every ten days. They are separated by half an orbital cycle, so each place on earth is visited once every five days. That’s a very long sampling period, and it raises the question of temporal aliasing.
Aliasing can occur when data are sampled with insufficient frequency. For example, if you measured the outdoor temperature once every 25 hours, and then plotted the data, you would get a waveform with a period of 24 days. But if you sampled the temperature once every 6 hours, you would get the (correct) waveform having a period of one day.
In a paper entitled “The Effects of Temporal Aliasing in Satellite Altimetry”, authors Ge Chen and Hui Lin concluded:
“Evidence and examples are presented to demonstrate the fact that aliasing could be a common feature in altimeter-measured wave propagation and mesoscale dynamics. These observations might be misunderstood if alias consequences are overlooked. Finally, it should be pointed out that the alias effect is an intrinsic feature in satellite altimetry which may, in some cases, lead to systematic errors. It seems to us that the overall performance of a satellite altimeter cannot be fully evaluated without taking into account its alias effect.”
I’m sorry to break it to you, but there are serious limitations to the satellite data.
Obewon August 7th, 2014 at 21:15
You’re opinions obfuscate the well proven facts of AGW agreed to by 97% of all Climatologists.
Again: Why can’t you find any climate indicators in decline? Inversely: “The linear rate of sea ice decline for May over the 1979 to 2010 period is now -2.41% per decade.” https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
Time history of atmospheric carbon dioxide from 800,000 years ago until January, 2012. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html
Robert M. Snyder’s opinions and those of tea party Big Oil Fed climate deniers apparently share the same lack of any worthwhile credibility ratings.
Robert M. Snyder August 7th, 2014 at 21:25
If you can’t engage in a discussion on the issues without resorting to personal attacks on my character, then I’m not willing to continue.
Obewon August 7th, 2014 at 21:29
3rd Time. Again: Why can’t you find any climate indicators in decline?
Don’t blame others for your lacking credibility in proving your ‘opinions.’ E.g. Exhibit A) Jason 2 satellite orbits at an Altitude of 1,336 km. Launched into the same orbit as Jason 1, maintaining the same measurement accuracy of Jason (3.3 cm) with a goal of achieving 2.5 cm. It also maintains the stability of the global mean sea level measurement with a drift less than 1 mm/year over the life of the mission. http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/measuring-sea-level.html
It’s your own fault for not posting a single thing proving your climate denial is based upon anything other than errant GOP TV.
Rocket Don August 10th, 2014 at 22:04
Stop with the 97% of all climatologists thing – it was debunked years ago.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/
Obewon August 10th, 2014 at 22:14
“Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree”-NASA! http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Lol! Vs. Anthony Watts studied Electrical Engineering and Meteorology at Purdue University, but has been unwilling to state whether he graduated. [1], [2] He is a former television meteorologist.
Background: -Anthony Watts is best known as the founder and editor of the Watts Up With That(WUWT), a blog that primarily publishes articles skeptical of climate change. WhatsUpWithShitHeads.com http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts
“97% of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1 and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.”-NASA et al further agree ‘80% of modern global warming increases are caused by human burning of fossil fuels with 20% from human deforestation’-NASA, NOAA, UK MET, IPPC, et al.
Rocket Don August 10th, 2014 at 23:35
Did you even bother to learn where your 97% number came from? Naw, probably not… People like you only acknowledge facts that fit with your preconceived notions and agendas…
Do you really believe that raising a minor greenhouse gas from 3 parts in 10,000 to 4, or even 5 parts in 10,000 over a few hundred years is going to doom us all? Got any proof? Of course not, because there is none.
But hey, the kool-aid is sweet is it not?
Obewon August 10th, 2014 at 23:50
Did you bother to read the NASA link, or NASA’s excerpt I posted for you? Instead you relied on some non-climate scientist delusional’s “Barry Woods” on an ex-TV weatherman’s debunked blog.
Here’s somebody else explaining their ‘97%’ drivel to you: -Besieged deniers Anthony Watts and Barry Woods engage in wishful thinking @-wattsupwiththat
Science deniers are the same as everyone else in the world in regard to confirmation bias. Well, maybe they have it worse than most of us when it comes to climate science. Still, everyone suffers confirmation bias to some degree.
Today Anthony Watts and his correspondent, Barry Woods, have caught a bad case of it (archived here). Most of Anthony’s WUWT readers haven’t. Anthony and Barry think that Mike Hulme is disputing the fact that 97% plus of scientists who do research relating in any way to climate agree that humans are causing global warming. But Mike Hulme is not disputing that at all. http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/besieged-deniers-anthony-watts-and.html
Obewon August 10th, 2014 at 23:59
Good luck trying to debunk NASA/NOAA et al by trying to find any climate indicators in decline. (Pick-up your #2 pencil. This timed test begins now.)
A) 1.3 Million year+ records via NASA & NOAA climate indicators e.g. NOAA’s data for land and ocean temperature anomalies shows that 14 of the past 15 years were the hottest on record. Linked herein http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/feb/15/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-12-hottest-years-record-have-com/
B) NASA climate indicators http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators/
C) NOAA climate indicators http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/ <-"Human Influence" is why '80% of modern global warming is caused by human burning of fossil fuels with 20% caused by human deforestation.'-NASA/NOAA.
D) CO2: Time history of atmospheric carbon dioxide from 800,000 years ago until January, 2012. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html
(Put down your #2 pencil. This timed test is over now.) If you learned nothing? Then you're scientifically & Climate illiterate, likely believing in an impossible 6,000 year old Earth & universe too.
Roctuna August 7th, 2014 at 11:11
Nice glib response but not correct. Dr. Elsner and coauthors have demonstrated a correlation between a decrease in the number of days with one tornado and an increase in the number of days with more than one. They also demonstrated a correlation between increasing storm intensity over the time span of their data and a trend towards concentration of tornadoes in one location. There is no causation involved. These relationships are observational and inherent in the data. The record of the storms is hard fact. The scientists have assembled a large enough data set, over a sufficiently long period of time to reveal trends. The “correlation” you seem to be bothered by is that these trends are consistent with predictions made by other climatic models. However, the object of their paper was not to ascribe cause but to document the qualitative trends in tornado data and point out that these trends are consistent with predictions made by current climate models.
You either misunderstood the gist of the abstract or you are intentionally misrepresenting their work.
Robert M. Snyder August 7th, 2014 at 11:56
“The “correlation” you seem to be bothered by is that these trends are consistent with predictions made by other climatic models.”
To the contrary. I am glad that this research is being done. I am in the habit of being skeptical of all scientific claims, regardless of whether they happen to support a pro-AGW view or an anti-AGW view.
What bothers me is when people with a strongly pro-AGW or anti-AGW bias see every scientific paper as “proof” of their position.
Roctuna August 7th, 2014 at 12:01
You still don’t get it. The authors, or myself, did not claim any proof. They point out that their observations are consistent with model predictions. That is not a claim of proof.
IMO you’re being disingenuous. Your original post was clearly intended to try to discredit the paper. Now you’re trying to walk that back and claim your glad for the research. Baloney.
Robert M. Snyder August 7th, 2014 at 12:10
In my original post, I made the following 5 statements:
1. “It appears that the authors found a correlation.”
2. “Finding correlations is easy.”
3. “Correlation does not prove causation.”
4. “Many correlations are simply coincidental.”
5. “In order to prove causation, you have to explain the mechanism by which one thing causes another.”
Statement #2 is subjective. The remaining 4 statements are factually true. I’m guessing that statement #5 is the one that bothers you. The “you” in that statement was intended to refer to the reader, but you probably thought I was referring to the researchers, as if they were claiming to have proven something. That was not my intent.
Roctuna August 7th, 2014 at 19:17
You refer to the authors in the 2nd sentence. Then your statements about correlation and causation and the link to whacky correlations and bad conclusions. The correlation you were making seemed pretty obvious to me (and at least 2 others who read your post). Sentences 2, 3, & 4 may be true but by following them with the link you’re suggesting any or all apply to the conclusions in the paper. I believe they’re a smokescreen for the unspoken doubt you’re implying. The only person or group “you” in the final sentence could be referring to is the authors, certainly not the reader. That whole post seems at odds with your replies to Obe. Skepticism is great but it seemed beyond that.
Robert M. Snyder August 7th, 2014 at 19:43
“The only person or group “you” in the final sentence could be referring to is the authors, certainly not the reader.”
Okay, we’re really parsing words here. I intended “you” to mean “someone” or “the person reading this”. For example, when someone writes “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.”, the word “you” is generally understood to mean “the reader” or “someone”.
Someone can lead a horse to water…
You, the reader, can lead a horse to water…
Cosmic_Surfer August 7th, 2014 at 10:08
Worst drought in history hits west coast, CO monsoons cause flooding over land scorched for 2 solid years by extreme heat, drought and fire – pine bark beetle now has two full hatching seasons instead of none – it used to be too cold for them..And now we have a new addition that never could live here before – Ash bark beetle)now turned to extreme snow and rains (I won’t mention the mountain top tornadoes that were considered extremely rare until we started getting a few every summer over the past couple of years)..then there are the 2 hurricanes headed for Honolulu (a phenomena never known to happen in known history …even a single hurricane on the islands is a fairly infrequent occurrence – 1 every 5 to 10 years. The Big Island has never been hit by a hurricane but we have one of two rushing straight to it))…Flooded London, snow on the Med and Ice in Mexico City…Nah – no reason to think we shifted the environment enough to cause dramatic effects.
Hold onto your ass…The 6th extinction is in full swing – All hail Kali – her Yuga is upon us
Cosmic_Surfer August 7th, 2014 at 10:08
Worst drought in history hits west coast, CO monsoons cause flooding over land scorched for 2 solid years by extreme heat, drought and fire – pine bark beetle now has two full hatching seasons instead of none – it used to be too cold for them..And now we have a new addition that never could live here before – Ash borer)now turned to extreme snow and rains (I won’t mention the mountain top tornadoes that were considered extremely rare until we started getting a few every summer over the past couple of years)..then there are the 2 hurricanes headed for Honolulu (a phenomena never known to happen in known history …even a single hurricane on the islands is a fairly infrequent occurrence – 1 every 5 to 10 years. The Big Island has never been hit by a hurricane but we have one of two rushing straight to it))…Flooded London, snow on the Med and Ice in Mexico City…Nah – no reason to think we shifted the environment enough to cause dramatic effects.
Hold onto your ass…The 6th extinction is in full swing – All hail Kali – her Yuga is upon us