Crosswords1 min ago
Extreme Weather?
64 Answers
It has been suggested that recent hurricanes achieving land-fall on the east coats of the USA and the flooding of properties up and down the UK are evidence of man-made climate change. Is the weather getting more 'extreme' or are there other factors at work?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by birdie1971. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
@pdq - Rather than offering a cut and paste explanation for something without attribution, it would be far easier to follow and more intellectually honest to offer a small snippet of the article you wish to reference, together with a link to that reference, so people can see for themselves the source and possible bias of any article, whilst giving the original author full credit for their work.
If you are planning to offer an article in its entirety here, at the very least correctly attribute the work to the original author.....
http
And as Beso points out - the idea of cyclical climate change is not new, and is taken into account when modelling the current and possible future consequences of climate change.
If you are planning to offer an article in its entirety here, at the very least correctly attribute the work to the original author.....
http
And as Beso points out - the idea of cyclical climate change is not new, and is taken into account when modelling the current and possible future consequences of climate change.
"The cause of the temperature rise is no longer debatable."
"Those who dismiss the problem because it isn't going to affect them directly are very sick people indeed."
And so the insults continue from the last time:
http
Anyone showing dissent or disagreement is put down and insulted (something which, I believe, has not been reciprocated).
WAKE UP!!!!!!!! Resistance is useless! You WILL comply!
Forgive me if I don't join in this time round.
"Those who dismiss the problem because it isn't going to affect them directly are very sick people indeed."
And so the insults continue from the last time:
http
Anyone showing dissent or disagreement is put down and insulted (something which, I believe, has not been reciprocated).
WAKE UP!!!!!!!! Resistance is useless! You WILL comply!
Forgive me if I don't join in this time round.
Beso - “... You are a pathetic hypocrite. In R&S you post your disdain for those with religious beliefs that conflict with science while you come to Science and propound you own articles of faith. Indeed you even use the same terminology as the faithful... Our previous debates have shown that you don't even understand the science you reject...”
Oh dear. Unfortunately Beso, you are a zealot (and I know precisely what it means) on the subject of anthropogenic climate change [ACC]. On this matter I am not a hypocrite and if you bothered to really look at *all* the evidence you would see that the matter is no where near as cut and dried as your believe it to be. I use the word 'believe' deliberately. As I do the word 'zealot'. Your vitriolic abuse of people who dare to oppose you on this matter is more akin to religious fundamentalism than measured debate. More often than not, you subject those who disagree with you with a volley of abuse that is, quite frankly, appalling. Your idea of a scientific debate appears to be to bludgeon your opponents to death with insults to their intelligence, lies, misinformation, denials of a credible alternative scientific view and strangest of all, the all pervading logical fallacy that is the 'appeal to authority'.
I am happy to debate with you on ACC but before I will further attempt to do so, you have to agree to desist from the appalling personal attacks and from desperate statements such as, “... Every day we waste not taking action contributes to the exponentially growing problem we are leaving to our children...” and “... Global Warming is the biggest environmental disaster since the Chixilub Impact...”
Oh dear. Unfortunately Beso, you are a zealot (and I know precisely what it means) on the subject of anthropogenic climate change [ACC]. On this matter I am not a hypocrite and if you bothered to really look at *all* the evidence you would see that the matter is no where near as cut and dried as your believe it to be. I use the word 'believe' deliberately. As I do the word 'zealot'. Your vitriolic abuse of people who dare to oppose you on this matter is more akin to religious fundamentalism than measured debate. More often than not, you subject those who disagree with you with a volley of abuse that is, quite frankly, appalling. Your idea of a scientific debate appears to be to bludgeon your opponents to death with insults to their intelligence, lies, misinformation, denials of a credible alternative scientific view and strangest of all, the all pervading logical fallacy that is the 'appeal to authority'.
I am happy to debate with you on ACC but before I will further attempt to do so, you have to agree to desist from the appalling personal attacks and from desperate statements such as, “... Every day we waste not taking action contributes to the exponentially growing problem we are leaving to our children...” and “... Global Warming is the biggest environmental disaster since the Chixilub Impact...”
birdie, I have debated this subject with you before and you have clearly demonstrated that you don't even understand the concepts underpinning the science.
There is no doubt among genuine, qualified scientists that AGW is real. If you understood the science you would agree.
I have no intention of wasting my time debating your ignorant religious beliefs.
There is no doubt among genuine, qualified scientists that AGW is real. If you understood the science you would agree.
I have no intention of wasting my time debating your ignorant religious beliefs.
Beso - “... you [birdie] have clearly demonstrated that you don't even understand the concepts underpinning the science... I have no intention of wasting my time debating your ignorant religious beliefs...”
Toys. Pram. Throw. I'm sure you can make a well known phrase out of those three little words. The fact is Beso, you cannot abide the idea that a great many scientists disagree strongly with one another on the nature and effects of AGW. You seem to think that anyone - including scientists - who do not agree that AGW is a complete and unmitigated catastrophe on a par with extinction level events are somehow 'sick' or possibly delusional. This is where your argument changes from being an open-minded, level headed debate to being a self-righteous, obnoxious, filibuster which looks for all the world like a religious fundamentalist rant. Hence my use of the word 'zealot'.
Year on year, the IPCC scale back their apocalyptic forecasts. The computer models whose virtue you so espouse are being proven wrong time and time again. The case for dangerous AGW is diminishing all the time and yet the voices of people like yourself are being more and more shrill and more and more insulting. I read the other day that a chap called Robyn Williams (a scientific journalist) equated those who doubt apocalyptic AGW with paedophiles and drug pushers. He sounds like your kind of guy.
Toys. Pram. Throw. I'm sure you can make a well known phrase out of those three little words. The fact is Beso, you cannot abide the idea that a great many scientists disagree strongly with one another on the nature and effects of AGW. You seem to think that anyone - including scientists - who do not agree that AGW is a complete and unmitigated catastrophe on a par with extinction level events are somehow 'sick' or possibly delusional. This is where your argument changes from being an open-minded, level headed debate to being a self-righteous, obnoxious, filibuster which looks for all the world like a religious fundamentalist rant. Hence my use of the word 'zealot'.
Year on year, the IPCC scale back their apocalyptic forecasts. The computer models whose virtue you so espouse are being proven wrong time and time again. The case for dangerous AGW is diminishing all the time and yet the voices of people like yourself are being more and more shrill and more and more insulting. I read the other day that a chap called Robyn Williams (a scientific journalist) equated those who doubt apocalyptic AGW with paedophiles and drug pushers. He sounds like your kind of guy.
birdie: We both point out the lies promulgated by theists when they come here looking to pedal their doctrine.
Why are you so surprised when you get the same treatment for lying about climate change?
Far from scaling back the projections made by the models the observed reality is exceeding the worst scenarios suggested by of any of them.
Why are you so surprised when you get the same treatment for lying about climate change?
Far from scaling back the projections made by the models the observed reality is exceeding the worst scenarios suggested by of any of them.
Beso – “... You are incredibly deluded and completely out of touch with reality...”
Not true I'm afraid. I'm neither deluded nor out of touch with reality. I'm sad to say that you appear to the victim of your own accusations. The difference between you and I is that I look at both sides of the scientific argument and I see much discordance between very credible scientists.
Beso - “... Far from scaling back the projections made by the models the observed reality is exceeding the worst scenarios suggested by of any of them...”
Simply not true again. You're going to have to back that one up with evidence. Every computer model 'projection' cited in the IPCC's assessment reports has been proved to be inaccurate. They have always overestimated the amount of warming – often to quite extraordinary degrees. Your faith in computer based models is misguided. Having built many computer models in my time, I can assure you that they can be manipulated to produce any result you see fit. Also, they are essentially worthless if you don't fully understand the system you're modelling. When a variable is unknown or unquantifiable (as many are in climate modelling), it is given an arbitrary value. This may or may not make the model work and if it doesn't, the value is changed or the function within which it is an operand is amended. The simulations are run and you 'test' them against reality. If it doesn't work, you tweak the model again and again and again until it does largely match your empirical data. However, when you then use the same model to predict (or as the IPCC says, 'project') future events, you must be aware that what you are seeing is nothing more than a possibility of the future. It is most definitely not certain and cannot be relied upon in any meaningful sense. The IPCC know this and that is why they define a computer 'projection' as - “... a potential future evolution of a quantity or set of quantities, often computed with the help of a model. Projections are distinguished from predictions in order to emphasise that projections involve assumptions concerning e.g. future socioeconomic and technological developments that may or may not be realised and are therefore subject to substantial uncertainty...”. However, it would seem that both you and the general public are predicated to believe in the veracity of computer models even though the people who actually create them are happy to admit that they may not bear the slightest resemblance to a future reality.
And you think I don't understand computer models or computer modelling?
“... My position is based on the evidence that you willfully ignore...”.
You could not be more wrong. Your position is based on the evidence you chose to look at. You wilfully ignore the very real fact that not all credible scientists agree that AGW is dangerous. Also, the vast majority of scientists do not agree that it will have a catastrophic effect on humankind and other species. It is you that is peddling the lie that AGW is the, “... biggest environmental disaster since the Chixilub Impact...”.
Not true I'm afraid. I'm neither deluded nor out of touch with reality. I'm sad to say that you appear to the victim of your own accusations. The difference between you and I is that I look at both sides of the scientific argument and I see much discordance between very credible scientists.
Beso - “... Far from scaling back the projections made by the models the observed reality is exceeding the worst scenarios suggested by of any of them...”
Simply not true again. You're going to have to back that one up with evidence. Every computer model 'projection' cited in the IPCC's assessment reports has been proved to be inaccurate. They have always overestimated the amount of warming – often to quite extraordinary degrees. Your faith in computer based models is misguided. Having built many computer models in my time, I can assure you that they can be manipulated to produce any result you see fit. Also, they are essentially worthless if you don't fully understand the system you're modelling. When a variable is unknown or unquantifiable (as many are in climate modelling), it is given an arbitrary value. This may or may not make the model work and if it doesn't, the value is changed or the function within which it is an operand is amended. The simulations are run and you 'test' them against reality. If it doesn't work, you tweak the model again and again and again until it does largely match your empirical data. However, when you then use the same model to predict (or as the IPCC says, 'project') future events, you must be aware that what you are seeing is nothing more than a possibility of the future. It is most definitely not certain and cannot be relied upon in any meaningful sense. The IPCC know this and that is why they define a computer 'projection' as - “... a potential future evolution of a quantity or set of quantities, often computed with the help of a model. Projections are distinguished from predictions in order to emphasise that projections involve assumptions concerning e.g. future socioeconomic and technological developments that may or may not be realised and are therefore subject to substantial uncertainty...”. However, it would seem that both you and the general public are predicated to believe in the veracity of computer models even though the people who actually create them are happy to admit that they may not bear the slightest resemblance to a future reality.
And you think I don't understand computer models or computer modelling?
“... My position is based on the evidence that you willfully ignore...”.
You could not be more wrong. Your position is based on the evidence you chose to look at. You wilfully ignore the very real fact that not all credible scientists agree that AGW is dangerous. Also, the vast majority of scientists do not agree that it will have a catastrophic effect on humankind and other species. It is you that is peddling the lie that AGW is the, “... biggest environmental disaster since the Chixilub Impact...”.
Thanks for your very succinct and lucid explanation of computer modelling, birdie. I too have spent much of my working life using multiple regression analyses to predict likely future outcomes in a number of fields. I am also well aware of the limitations of these tools - limitations which you have explained so well and which beso has chosen so conveniently to gloss over.
Alas there is no reasoning with his ilk. Their mind is made up - "The cause of the temperature rise is no longer debatable" - when in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. I have had many lively debates on AB about climate change. The likes of jake-the-peg (and others) have strong views, but argue their corner reasonably and fairly and do not resort to personal insults when their arguments have expired or been challenged. I fully respect and appreciate their contributions and enjoy the cut and thrust of the debates. But any further questions involving beso, I'm afraid, will have to do without me because, being the sensitive soul that I am (!!!), I don't enjoy insults.
Alas there is no reasoning with his ilk. Their mind is made up - "The cause of the temperature rise is no longer debatable" - when in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. I have had many lively debates on AB about climate change. The likes of jake-the-peg (and others) have strong views, but argue their corner reasonably and fairly and do not resort to personal insults when their arguments have expired or been challenged. I fully respect and appreciate their contributions and enjoy the cut and thrust of the debates. But any further questions involving beso, I'm afraid, will have to do without me because, being the sensitive soul that I am (!!!), I don't enjoy insults.
New Judge -
Most people don't understand computer modelling. They falsely believe that if a computer is programmed to 'model' climate then the output of that model must be true because as we all know, computers don't make mistakes. What they fail to understand is that a computer program that models climate is only as good as the people punching in the variables and devising the functions within which those variables operate. If the people programming the climate models don't fully understand how a chaotic climate system operates on a micro level (which they don't – no one does), then any inputs and assumptions they make are just best guesses. No more and no less.
Unfortunately, the likes of Beso have accepted as true the illusion of accuracy that computers present. Both he and they swallow the lie, hook, line and sinker when the outputs of climatic computer models are no more reliable than astrology.
Most people don't understand computer modelling. They falsely believe that if a computer is programmed to 'model' climate then the output of that model must be true because as we all know, computers don't make mistakes. What they fail to understand is that a computer program that models climate is only as good as the people punching in the variables and devising the functions within which those variables operate. If the people programming the climate models don't fully understand how a chaotic climate system operates on a micro level (which they don't – no one does), then any inputs and assumptions they make are just best guesses. No more and no less.
Unfortunately, the likes of Beso have accepted as true the illusion of accuracy that computers present. Both he and they swallow the lie, hook, line and sinker when the outputs of climatic computer models are no more reliable than astrology.
I am well aware of the limitations of computer modelling. However a vast amount of has gone into refining climate models such that they accurately match the measurements embedded in the geological records of the past.
Dozens of independent models are coming up with the results all in the same direction. Increased carbon dioxide causes the atmosphere to retain more heat.
Moreover the observed reality is beyond the projections of the models.
You may well criticise the modelling but do tell. What is your presumption that there is not a problem based on?
FAITH and FAITH alone.
Dozens of independent models are coming up with the results all in the same direction. Increased carbon dioxide causes the atmosphere to retain more heat.
Moreover the observed reality is beyond the projections of the models.
You may well criticise the modelling but do tell. What is your presumption that there is not a problem based on?
FAITH and FAITH alone.
Beso - “... Your lies that the observed reality is short of the modelling make me sick...”
Your above quote just supports what I have been saying all along. Why would my my opinion make you 'sick'? You sound more and more like a fundamentalist loon with every post. Really Beso, you need to take an objective look at what you post sometimes.
You do make yourself look foolish when you make statements such as, “... I am well aware of the limitations of computer modelling...” and then go on to say that, “... they accurately match the measurements embedded in the geological records of the past...”. The more you talk about computer models, the more it becomes clear that you understand little if anything about their capacity to accurately predict the future. You mention that the models '… match the measurements embedded in the geological records of the past...”. But as I have already said, tweaking your computer model's parameters to match previous or existing conditions does not in any way guarantee future predictions or as the IPCC calls them, projections. The IPCC gets this. The computer modellers get this. The reason you (and others who believe fervently in AGW and in computer simulations can predict the future) don't get it is because you want to believe so badly that human beings and their modern industrial lifestyle is a blight on this planet. But not you specifically of course. No, no, no. Not you – you're 'eco' friendly. It's all the other fluppers who are the problem but definitely not you on your Antipodean idyll with your wind turbines and your photovoltaic panels (and your multiple fossil fuelled vehicles)...
You further espouse, “... You may well criticise the modelling but do tell. What is your presumption that there is not a problem based on? FAITH and FAITH alone.”
I'm not sure why you feel the need to type the word 'faith' in capitals. Maybe you were feeling particularly fundamental at the time? I suspect your spittle-flecked monitor speaks volumes. Who knows? Anyway, your argument betrays your eco-fundamentalist beliefs far more that it does my understanding of the science of AGW.
In answer to your question I would say, empirical evidence. Pray tell, where is the 'problem' that you think is so apparent? Are the Seychelles drowning due to sea-level rise? No. Have they experienced a single millimetre of sea-level rise? No. Are the thousands of European ski resorts suffering due to a lack of winter snow-fall? No. Has there been any significantly dramatic or unusual weather that exceeds the known parameters within the period of time that we have been recording weather anywhere in the world? No. Not a single one of the predicted 'environmental distastes' has occurred. Nor does it look like any one will occur in the foreseeable future.
You're simply a doom-monger Beso. You are an eco-warrior of the worst kind. You spread lies and promote fear and denigrate humankind to the level of a parasite.
Your above quote just supports what I have been saying all along. Why would my my opinion make you 'sick'? You sound more and more like a fundamentalist loon with every post. Really Beso, you need to take an objective look at what you post sometimes.
You do make yourself look foolish when you make statements such as, “... I am well aware of the limitations of computer modelling...” and then go on to say that, “... they accurately match the measurements embedded in the geological records of the past...”. The more you talk about computer models, the more it becomes clear that you understand little if anything about their capacity to accurately predict the future. You mention that the models '… match the measurements embedded in the geological records of the past...”. But as I have already said, tweaking your computer model's parameters to match previous or existing conditions does not in any way guarantee future predictions or as the IPCC calls them, projections. The IPCC gets this. The computer modellers get this. The reason you (and others who believe fervently in AGW and in computer simulations can predict the future) don't get it is because you want to believe so badly that human beings and their modern industrial lifestyle is a blight on this planet. But not you specifically of course. No, no, no. Not you – you're 'eco' friendly. It's all the other fluppers who are the problem but definitely not you on your Antipodean idyll with your wind turbines and your photovoltaic panels (and your multiple fossil fuelled vehicles)...
You further espouse, “... You may well criticise the modelling but do tell. What is your presumption that there is not a problem based on? FAITH and FAITH alone.”
I'm not sure why you feel the need to type the word 'faith' in capitals. Maybe you were feeling particularly fundamental at the time? I suspect your spittle-flecked monitor speaks volumes. Who knows? Anyway, your argument betrays your eco-fundamentalist beliefs far more that it does my understanding of the science of AGW.
In answer to your question I would say, empirical evidence. Pray tell, where is the 'problem' that you think is so apparent? Are the Seychelles drowning due to sea-level rise? No. Have they experienced a single millimetre of sea-level rise? No. Are the thousands of European ski resorts suffering due to a lack of winter snow-fall? No. Has there been any significantly dramatic or unusual weather that exceeds the known parameters within the period of time that we have been recording weather anywhere in the world? No. Not a single one of the predicted 'environmental distastes' has occurred. Nor does it look like any one will occur in the foreseeable future.
You're simply a doom-monger Beso. You are an eco-warrior of the worst kind. You spread lies and promote fear and denigrate humankind to the level of a parasite.
-- answer removed --
birdie //Are the Seychelles drowning due to sea-level rise? No. Have they experienced a single millimetre of sea-level rise? //
Interesting that you chose a particular location. I could cherry pick data too and go for the Tropical Western Pacific where the rise has been among the highest to affect island. The rise varies due to changes in atmospheric pressure, ocean currents and temperatures.
Here is map showing how the average 3.2mm per year rise has been distributed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_map_showing_where_average_sea_level_in_2011_was_above_or_below_the_long-term_average_(1993-2011)_(NOAA).jpg
Modern sea level measurements are taken from satellites. This avoids the problems with fluctuation in land height from tectonic movements. For example parts of the North American plate are still rebounding after the weight of the ice sheet from the last glaciation was removed.
But you know what is really sad about your post? It appears the whole claim of there being no sea level rise at the Seychelles is a myth that started among the denialist community and has been repeated so many times that they accept it as truth.
You have swallowed it without bothering to verify it. So much for your pretense of reviewing the scientific data.
Perhaps you can link to real data. I can't find anything but a claim that sea levels have fallen at the Seychelles accompanied by a dead link.
Like many island nations The Seychelles is among countries that take climate change very seriously.
Interesting that you chose a particular location. I could cherry pick data too and go for the Tropical Western Pacific where the rise has been among the highest to affect island. The rise varies due to changes in atmospheric pressure, ocean currents and temperatures.
Here is map showing how the average 3.2mm per year rise has been distributed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_map_showing_where_average_sea_level_in_2011_was_above_or_below_the_long-term_average_(1993-2011)_(NOAA).jpg
Modern sea level measurements are taken from satellites. This avoids the problems with fluctuation in land height from tectonic movements. For example parts of the North American plate are still rebounding after the weight of the ice sheet from the last glaciation was removed.
But you know what is really sad about your post? It appears the whole claim of there being no sea level rise at the Seychelles is a myth that started among the denialist community and has been repeated so many times that they accept it as truth.
You have swallowed it without bothering to verify it. So much for your pretense of reviewing the scientific data.
Perhaps you can link to real data. I can't find anything but a claim that sea levels have fallen at the Seychelles accompanied by a dead link.
Like many island nations The Seychelles is among countries that take climate change very seriously.
Beso - “... But you know what is really sad about your post? It appears the whole claim of there being no sea level rise at the Seychelles is a myth that started among the denialist community and has been repeated so many times that they accept it as truth... You have swallowed it without bothering to verify it. So much for your pretense of reviewing the scientific data... Perhaps you can link to real data. I can't find anything but a claim that sea levels have fallen at the Seychelles accompanied by a dead link...”
Do you know what's completely pathetic about your own post Beso? It is the fact that you couldn't find a link that supports the real myth that sea levels are rising in the Seychelles region. You've clearly looked and come up with nothing, for if you had you would have triumphantly posted the link and proclaimed me to be wrong and with all the attendant predictable insults. Instead, what you have done is found nothing to support your fundamentalist and apocalyptic stance and yet you have still proclaimed me to be wrong. You clearly subscribe to the maxim, heads I win tails you lose.
By the way, why do you think no one's published a paper that shows a dangerous amount of sea level rise in the Seychelles? It would be such a devastating paper wouldn't it? I wonder why no one has bothered to write one? It's a complete mystery...?
You finish by saying, “... Like many island nations The Seychelles is among countries that take climate change very seriously...”.
Of course they do. Why wouldn't they? Catastrophic sea level rise would clearly decimate their tourism economy as it would many coastal regions. That is why certain members of the Seychelles government held a high profile 'meeting' in 2009 year, under water, wearing scuba gear. A publicity stunt to fool the gullible and foolish into thinking that they are about to be inundated and ruined. Thankfully for them, they're wrong and they know it – it was all a carefully orchestrated event to try and get 'rich' western nations to give money and aid to the the Seychelles government.
Do you know what's completely pathetic about your own post Beso? It is the fact that you couldn't find a link that supports the real myth that sea levels are rising in the Seychelles region. You've clearly looked and come up with nothing, for if you had you would have triumphantly posted the link and proclaimed me to be wrong and with all the attendant predictable insults. Instead, what you have done is found nothing to support your fundamentalist and apocalyptic stance and yet you have still proclaimed me to be wrong. You clearly subscribe to the maxim, heads I win tails you lose.
By the way, why do you think no one's published a paper that shows a dangerous amount of sea level rise in the Seychelles? It would be such a devastating paper wouldn't it? I wonder why no one has bothered to write one? It's a complete mystery...?
You finish by saying, “... Like many island nations The Seychelles is among countries that take climate change very seriously...”.
Of course they do. Why wouldn't they? Catastrophic sea level rise would clearly decimate their tourism economy as it would many coastal regions. That is why certain members of the Seychelles government held a high profile 'meeting' in 2009 year, under water, wearing scuba gear. A publicity stunt to fool the gullible and foolish into thinking that they are about to be inundated and ruined. Thankfully for them, they're wrong and they know it – it was all a carefully orchestrated event to try and get 'rich' western nations to give money and aid to the the Seychelles government.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
Travel18 mins ago
Crosswords20 mins ago
Crosswords25 mins ago
