Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Nevada Convert

Washington Post: This Hurricane Is Trumps Fault

Recommended Posts

For people who don't understand the role climate change is having on hurricane season, here's a primer from NASA.

While the gross frequency of occurrence of hurricanes to hit the U.S is noticeably less than the peak number recorded in the mid-20th century, this does not account for global cyclonic activity. Nor does it take into account a host of other metrics that show a clear and distinct rise in storm intensity, as well as the rapidity of intensification. That these all correlate with an unprecedented warming of our oceans provides the simplest explanation of causality.

Screen_Shot_2018_09_14_at_9_43_35_AM.png

Screen_Shot_2018_09_14_at_9_46_30_AM.png

Both the above graphs were pulled from this article published Tuesday in The Guardian.

 

 

St-Javelin-Sm.jpgChase.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Nevada Convert said:

You think you’re one of those them-there super smart global warming scientists, don’t cha! 

I am not a climatologist, but I am smart enough to know that when an overwhelming percentage of scientists are in agreement on anything, no matter what the field, disagreeing with them on a matter of principle is stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheSanDiegan said:

This statement ignores the fact that when someone goes to publish their findings, this very same competition for finite funds results in their peers attempting to rip the shit out of the findings. By the time a finding has been peer reviewed and published it has run a gauntlet of critical analysis by all the people competing for the same funds.

Not quite.

Government entities that hand out those funds pick the study topics. The PHD candidates that end up doing the research know their dissertation is going to be received with more positive encouragement if they satisfy the preordained outcomes expected.

Peer review is often just another word for peer pressure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheSanDiegan said:

For people who don't understand the role climate change is having on hurricane season, here's a primer from NASA.

While the gross frequency of occurrence of hurricanes to hit the U.S is noticeably less than the peak number recorded in the mid-20th century, this does not account for global cyclonic activity. Nor does it take into account a host of other metrics that show a clear and distinct rise in storm intensity, as well as the rapidity of intensification. That these all correlate with an unprecedented warming of our oceans provides the simplest explanation of causality.

Screen_Shot_2018_09_14_at_9_43_35_AM.png

Screen_Shot_2018_09_14_at_9_46_30_AM.png

Both the above graphs were pulled from this article published Tuesday in The Guardian.

 

 

Correlation has nothing to do with causality.

50 years of weather data would be the minuscule amount someone would use who wanted to present a biased picture.   

We would need a million years of data to come to any conclusions at all.   That would still be about equal sample size to predicting a presidential election outcome, by calling 1200 people who you think will vote.

Until your data and prediction includes a number telling me the statistical significance of the finding, i don't care what it says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

Not quite.

Government entities that hand out those funds pick the study topics. The PHD candidates that end up doing the research know their dissertation is going to be received with more positive encouragement if they satisfy the preordained outcomes expected.

Peer review is often just another word for peer pressure.

If a researched want to be guaranteed big money for a pre determined outcome, they can go to the fossil fuel industry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

Correlation has nothing to do with causality.

50 years of weather data would be the minuscule amount someone would use who wanted to present a biased picture.   

We would need a million years of data to come to any conclusions at all.   That would still be about equal sample size to predicting a presidential election outcome, by calling 1200 people who you think will vote.

Until your data and prediction includes a number telling me the statistical significance of the finding, i don't care what it says.

You are correct. Causation, however, has everything to do with causality.

Fortunately, we don't require a million years of data, as we have the First Law of Thermodynamics. A net increase of heat => a net warming of our oceans => a net increase in potential energy for cyclonic systems.

St-Javelin-Sm.jpgChase.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

Not quite.

Government entities that hand out those funds pick the study topics. The PHD candidates that end up doing the research know their dissertation is going to be received with more positive encouragement if they satisfy the preordained outcomes expected.

Peer review is often just another word for peer pressure.

I agree to some extent but I also think you're undervaluing the role of scientific peer reviews, or the career-damaging harm to one's reputation that can occur if someone publishes suspect findings.

St-Javelin-Sm.jpgChase.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jackmormon said:

Government pay for predetermined outcomes, or bury research that doesn't say what they want it to.

So you say there is no such thing as government corruption?   Well other than people in your job forcing people to have sex for housing.  HA!HA! HA! HAA! HA! HA! HA! HA!  

 

How about claims by Scientists of Corruption in CDChttps://www.ecowatch.com/cdc-corruption-robert-kennedy-jr-2096438139.html

The scientists told Villar that, "questionable and unethical practices, occurring at all levels and in all of our respective units, threaten to undermine our credibility and reputation as a trusted leader in public health." The letter charged that staff level scientists "are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right," and that, "Senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviors."

 

  • The scientists also complain about the "troubling" adventures of Dr. Barbara Bowman, director of CDC's Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, and Dr. Michael Pratt, Senior Advisor for Global Health at the NCCDPHP. Bowman recently left the CDC following shocking media disclosures that the pair had manipulated scientific studies on soft drink safety in collusion with Coca Cola. The CDC flimflam was part of Coke's campaign to pressure the World Health Organization to relax guidelines for sugar consumption by children in developing nations where the soda industry is aggressively expanding its markets

Corrupt NIH study and othershttps://www.livemint.com/Opinion/rRsUEs0nr1NhuKRCaEV37J/Time-to-stem-the-corruption-in-scientific-studies.html

The other example, from Wired, cited a $100 million, 10-year-long study that was run by the US’s National Institutes of Health (NIH) named the Moderate Alcohol and Cardiovascular Health Trial. Investigative reporters at The New York Times uncovered some time ago that researchers under the supervision of NIH had aggressively sought funding from the liquor industry to conduct the study, while implying that it would turn out to be favourable if liquor companies paid up. This problem is a more familiar one—the blurring of ethical lines when supposedly “independent” scientific researchers accept money from industry. NIH initiated an audit and has now pulled the plug on the multi-year study.

Use of the media to propagate propaganda.

Your climate scientist Al Gores corruption and movie not allowed in British schools as it is found to be propaganda.   

Al Gore's environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth contains nine key scientific errors, a High Court judge ruled yesterday.  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3310137/Al-Gores-nine-Inconvenient-Untruths.html

The nine alleged errors in the film

  1. Mr Gore claims that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future". The judge said: "This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore's "wake-up call". He agreed that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water - "but only after, and over, millennia"."The Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus."
     
  2. The film claims that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls "are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming" but the judge ruled there was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.
     
  3. The documentary speaks of global warming "shutting down the Ocean Conveyor" - the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to western Europe. Citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the judge said that it was "very unlikely" that the Ocean Conveyor, also known as the Meridional Overturning Circulation, would shut down in the future, though it might slow down.
     
  4. Mr Gore claims that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed "an exact fit". The judge said that, although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, "the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts".
     
  5. Mr Gore says the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was directly attributable to global warming, but the judge ruled that it scientists have not established that the recession of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is primarily attributable to human-induced climate change.
     
  6. The film contends that the drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming but the judge said there was insufficient evidence, and that "it is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability."
     
  7. Mr Gore blames Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans on global warming, but the judge ruled there was "insufficient evidence to show that".
     
  8. Mr Gore cites a scientific study that shows, for the first time, that polar bears were being found after drowning from "swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice" The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued - "but it plainly does not support Mr Gore's description".
     
  9. Mr Gore said that coral reefs all over the world were being bleached because of global warming and other factors. Again citing the IPCC, the judge agreed that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. However, he ruled that separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult.

The judge declined to ban the Academy Award-winning film from British schools, but ruled that it can only be shown with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination.

How about your drinking water in Michigan? https://www.cnn.com/2016/01/11/health/toxic-tap-water-flint-michigan/index.html

How about Clark County commissioners taking bribes?  http://mentalfloss.com/article/20340/4-more-examples-american-political-corruption

How about FEMA and New Orleans corruption? https://whowhatwhy.org/2015/08/24/corruption-and-contempt-the-hidden-story-of-hurricane-katrina/

https://www.nola.com/katrina/index.ssf/2015/08/katrina_brought_good_and_evil.html

How about over 2500 convictions for federal corruption?  https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/budget/public-officials-corruption-impact-u-s-state-spending

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TheSanDiegan said:

You are correct. Causation, however, has everything to do with causality.

Fortunately, we don't require a million years of data, as we have the First Law of Thermodynamics. A net increase of heat => a net warming of our oceans => a net increase in potential energy for cyclonic systems.

How come your predictions fail then?

Oh that's right you forgot about the solar minimum.

Oh that's right you found out the oceans could absorb green house gasses more and to a larger degree than you predicted.

Oh that's right Sahara desert dust has a major effect on how much heat reaches the ocean during hurricane season.

 

Maybe it is more complicated than some simple calculation used in closed laboratory systems successfully like the Law of Thermodynamics.   The earth and its processes are far more complicated than just one or two variables.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, TheSanDiegan said:

I agree to some extent but I also think you're undervaluing the role of scientific peer reviews, or the career-damaging harm to one's reputation that can occur if someone publishes suspect findings.

Read this on your great system of peer review.

https://www.livemint.com/Opinion/rRsUEs0nr1NhuKRCaEV37J/Time-to-stem-the-corruption-in-scientific-studies.html

Journal editors, who oversee peer-reviewed journals, are supposed to send submissions to some of the author’s peers, usually to test whether the claims the author is making can be replicated by the reviewers independently in their own laboratories. According to The Economist, one estimate puts the number of questionable papers without peer review at over 400,000!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/13/2018 at 11:40 AM, Boise fan said:

It's drought, mudslides, earthquakes and fire on the West Coast.  Tornadoes, hail and flooding in the Midwest, and heavy snow and ice in the North East.  Where in America is it without issues?  :P

I think I could live with heavy snow in the East. However the humidity in parts of the US would kill me. lOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL.  check out the 2 dudes in the background strolling past weather guy and he fights against the storm.

Funny Fake News!

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

-Richard Feynman

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."

-P.J. O’Rourke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are storms stronger or more frequent? That can be argued either way.

 

That they are more destructive is more clear cut. And that destruction is less related to storm strength.

 

Two major factors 1) there are more people in harm's way. More people, more densely packed areas near water and worse, all the infrastructure that goes with it. More asphalt and cement and less ground which leaves no place for water to go.

 

Then 2) storms have been slowing down resulting in torrents of rain.

 

Both result in greater destruction. Add rising sea levels....storms are more destructive at least in part because of people and their poor planning. In terms of climate change, I think yes but it's open for at least some debate at this point 

One of the Final Five..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/13/2018 at 7:33 PM, renoskier said:

 

I ask once again, why is it that all the "climate change" deniers are also right wingers?

Why is this a partisan issue?

That’s a very interesting question, but in the end the right thinks it’s because the left is dumb and vice versa. But I’ve been thinking about that question for a few days, and it is a complicated answer because there are more than a few reasons. I’ll answer this soon with a long post, maybe even a new thread. 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...