2 2
rushmc

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I’ve already issued a mia culpa, for this years hurricane season, two months ago.  If it is global warming and not a result of this year’s La Niña, we should expect next year to be even worse.  If it is, I will have been wrong, if it isn’t I will have been vindicated.  It sure doesn’t look like a trend.

image.png.25c167589afac6552c1e399927359e84.png

 

I don't believe that for one iota.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, billvon said:

Correct.  And we have indeed seen tropical storms become stronger.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/18/climate/climate-changes-hurricane-intensity.html

I don’t subscribe to crap like the NYT.  Cut and paste if you want me respond.

BTW still waiting for your response regarding forum rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Question for the moderators

Would it be acceptable for me to respond with something like “the douchebagery is strong with this one” or do PAs only go in one direction?  The posters response adds nothing to the conversation, it is not funny, it is not even slightly clever.  I would call his retort sophomoric, but that would be an insult to sophomores.  Please advise.

Bill will feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure -- and he should.

On the moderation issue (and I'm no expert), I'd say that "the weasel is strong" is a push-to-the-limits way of saying "you're weaseling." To weasel is a fairly common verb, which describes an evasive argument, and therefore is within forum rules. Saying "you're a douchebag" is not within forum rules; saying "you're acting like a douchebag" is probably not, but saying "that would be a seriously douchebag thing to say" would be -- because it doesn't describe actuality, only possible behavior.

Some people are really, really, good at dancing around the line. Most of them don't always get away with it, and it doesn't make them look as cool as they think. Better just to be clear, and say "that's a shitty argument, and here's why." You can always call the argument shitty. But if you say it all the time, they know the statement says more about you than it does about them.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

I don’t subscribe to crap like the NYT.  Cut and paste if you want me respond.

BTW still waiting for your response regarding forum rules.

The NYT has far more credibility that many of the sources you've quoted in denying climate change. Feigned anger and requiring formatting prior to you responding doesn't aid your position. Some people here get some slack because they are slower on the uptake than yourself. But since you're not a dummy. Don't expect slack.

IMO you and your family have financial and other pecuniary interests in a natural GOP political position. In your position of climate denial. There is nothing wrong with that. Its the reason why you dance around climate change and GOP corruption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Question for the moderators

Would it be acceptable for me to respond with something like “the douchebagery is strong with this one” or do PAs only go in one direction?  The posters response adds nothing to the conversation, it is not funny, it is not even slightly clever.  I would call his retort sophomoric, but that would be an insult to sophomores.  Please advise.

If you don't like the description of what you do, just stop doing it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Question for the moderators

Would it be acceptable for me to respond with something like “the douchebagery is strong with this one” or do PAs only go in one direction?  The posters response adds nothing to the conversation, it is not funny, it is not even slightly clever.  I would call his retort sophomoric, but that would be an insult to sophomores.  Please advise.

You can call his retort (or his posts) sophomoric.  You can't call HIM sophomoric.

As Wendy has explained, you can attack what someone says, you can not attack them.  Several people here try to skirt this.  If you see something you have a question about PM a moderator and they will look at it WHEN IT HAPPENS.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, billvon said:

You can call his retort (or his posts) sophomoric.  You can't call HIM sophomoric.
 

Yet I can be called a weasel, bigot, homophobe, transphobe, denier, dead ender, misogynist, and reading comprehensive challenged and that’s ok? Got it.  That is ok though because it says more about the name callers than it does me.
Mind you, I am NOT playing victim here (that would be unbecoming of an Airborne Ranger) I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy.  Not calling anyone a hypocrite BTW, just saying there is a profound double standard.  
But that is OK, I could go elsewhere however chose to stay engaged.  

 

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2020 at 4:48 PM, brenthutch said:

I’ve already issued a mia culpa, for this years hurricane season, two months ago.  If it is global warming and not a result of this year’s La Niña, we should expect next year to be even worse.  If it is, I will have been wrong, if it isn’t I will have been vindicated.  It sure doesn’t look like a trend.

You're the one who started this entire hurricane thing, chose your method and said it was a valid metric for disproving what you said is a claim about global warming.  The argument you've lost is with yourself utilizing a claim that you have made.  The thing is that your argument is again based upon the words of people you like to pick out of the mix who say everything is caused by global warming. Scientifically speaking that's not verified by those who study it the most, it is only a possibility and there is no evidence that in the last 100 years that the increase in reported storms is because of anything more than increased maritime traffic having been a witness to storms.

Next, what happens next year does not prove or disprove anything, not because of the relvance of a La Nina but because that's not how averages work.  Yearly data is all over the place and doesn't even become usable until recorded beyond a decade.

This is like your claim that we would all eat crow if the NOAA Climate report showed that one year's Febuary was cooler than last years Febuary (link below).  It wasn't, and it was funny to watch you go silent on that one too but it also doesn't prove anyone else's point.  For reference here is a valid sources writeup on the relationship between climate change and hurricane/storm activity (Note that it was written recently and at the end of an immensly active storm season yet they still don't say that this year proves anything):  https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

Here is the referenced data source for the long term trend on rising worldwide temperatures:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/202010/supplemental/page-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OOPS!

I just happened to be watching the weather channel this morning and came across this little tidbit; the actual metric weather professionals use to rate hurricane seasons is something called ACE (accumulated cyclone energy) and it accounts for the number, strength, and duration of tropical cyclones.  Guess where 2020 ranks?  #1? No, #2? No, #3? No, #4? Nope, #5? Guess again. 2020 barely makes the top ten, coming in at number ten.

Looks like I am going to have to rescind my Mea Culpa and replace it with an I-a-told-ya:tongue:

Or to quote my great granddaddy Beauregard Hutchings,

”I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken”

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

OOPS!

I just happened to be watching the weather channel this morning and came across this little tidbit; the actual metric weather professionals use to rate hurricane seasons is something called ACE (accumulated cyclone energy) and it accounts for the number, strength, and duration of tropical cyclones.  Guess where 2020 ranks?  #1? No, #2? No, #3? No, #4? Nope, #5? Guess again. 2020 barely makes the top ten, coming in at number ten.

Looks like I am going to have to rescind my Mea Culpa and replace it with an I-a-told-ya:tongue:

You keep choosing a new batch of poison to cure your headache.

Scroll down to "Historical ACE in recorded Atlantic hurricane history". It lists the ACE rankings from 1851. Then look at the ACE rankings starting at 1995-2020. Extremely active and above normal 88% during that time frame.

I'm sure you'll keep this thread alive for at least another year or so. There being many more poisons to try.

Edited by Phil1111

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

You keep choosing a new batch of poison to cure your headache.

Scroll down to "Historical ACE in recorded Atlantic hurricane history". It lists the ACE rankings from 1851. Then look at the ACE rankings starting at 1995-2020. Extremely active and above normal 88% during that time frame.

I'm sure you'll keep this thread alive for at least another year or so. There being many more poisons to try.

We are talking about one year, 2020 not the last 25.  Not to mention the records that precede the satellite era are of little comparative value.  But if you want to change the subject, you can nosh on the global ACE data

http://climatlas.com/tropical/

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One year is not climate change. One year is a piece of a trend. If a company has steadily decreasing profits, and all of a sudden has a good quarter does that mean it’s no longer on a downward spiral? Probably not, barring a change. 
Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, brenthutch said:

We are talking about one year, 2020 not the last 25.  Not to mention the records that precede the satellite era are of little comparative value.  But if you want to change the subject, you can nosh on the global ACE data

http://climatlas.com/tropical/

Every time you do this you should attach the image to let us know without having to read the drivel.

goalposts.gif.681be3483107185c3a27fa5e3404cf25.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kallend said:

Every time you do this you should attach the image to let us know without having to read the drivel.

If you read one, or two, or three of his posts, and he does this, and it surprises you - OK.

But you've been reading him for years.  Are you honestly not expecting it?  Or do you see it and think "yay!  I can make fun of him again!"  If so I have exactly zero sympathy for your plight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billvon said:

If you read one, or two, or three of his posts, and he does this, and it surprises you - OK.

But you've been reading him for years.  Are you honestly not expecting it?  Or do you see it and think "yay!  I can make fun of him again!"  If so I have exactly zero sympathy for your plight.

To be fair, he doesn't do it every time he posts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Yet I can be called a weasel, bigot, homophobe, transphobe, denier, dead ender, misogynist, and reading comprehensive challenged and that’s ok? 

 

I have to add “dick” to that list, or is saying I am being a dick different than calling me a dick?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to moving the goalposts; there was a back-and-forth on this thread about the number of tropical cyclones vs their strength (or lack there of).  The ACE metric accounts for those two variables as well as duration, giving a more accurate measure of the intensity of a hurricane season.  It is only by luck that I came across this more accurate method and according to the Weather Channel, it is the correct one.  That said,  being in the top ten still makes it a very active season, just not a record breaker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2