0
brenthutch

Climate crisis (European Physical Journal)

Recommended Posts

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02243-9

“Trend analysis of the time series of tropical cyclones show a substantial temporal invariance and the same is true for tornadoes in the USA. At the same time, the impact of warming on surface wind speed remains unclear. The analysis is then extended to some global response indicators of extreme meteorological events, namely natural disasters, floods, droughts, ecosystem productivity and yields of the four main crops (maize, rice, soybean and wheat). None of these response indicators show a clear positive trend of extreme events. In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident”

If you depend on mass media and Facebook for your climate change information, you might want to take a look at this

Share this post


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

If you depend on mass media and Facebook for your climate change information, you might want to take a look at this

Nice try, you don't really follow scientific journals because you can barely read technical language. Stop pretending you do.

Brent's actual source for this paper: https://www.johnlocke.org/a-critical-assessment-of-extreme-events-trends-in-times-of-global-warming/

Johnlocke.org is a conservative think tank - so brent probably got this from, guess what, Fox News or Facebook :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Nice try, you don't really follow scientific journals because you can barely read technical language. Stop pretending you do.

Brent's actual source for this paper: https://www.johnlocke.org/a-critical-assessment-of-extreme-events-trends-in-times-of-global-warming/

Johnlocke.org is a conservative think tank - so brent probably got this from, guess what, Fox News or Facebook :rofl:

Wrong again, as usual.  Do you wish to rebut any of the points made?

Didn't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Notice how brent avoids mentioning where he got it from...

..

NoTricksZone, how does it feel to be wrong?  Your inability to put up any sort of meaningful rebuttal speaks volumes.  
I think I just heard you topple your king. :ohmygod:

Share this post


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

NoTricksZone, how does it feel to be wrong?  Your inability to put up any sort of meaningful rebuttal speaks volumes.  
I think I just heard you topple your king. :ohmygod:

So a random blog, how is that any better than Facebook or the mainstream news? :rofl:

Yes, you're like that chess-playing pigeon. Enjoy your "victory" :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, olofscience said:

So a random blog, how is that any better than Facebook or the mainstream news? :rofl:

Yes, you're like that chess-playing pigeon. Enjoy your "victory" :rofl:

Still no meaningful response…

I’m still waiting for you to explain, “The reason China is building so many coal fired power plants is because wind and solar are cheaper and more scalable”xD

That one was a real knee slapper.  You crack me up.

(BTW thanks for the continual responses, it keeps this post at the top of the page)

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, olofscience said:

First question: do you agree with every single sentence in the paper? Then I can start my rebuttals. But I doubt you even read past the title.

Simple yes or no would do.

Since it basically confirms what I have been saying for the past ten years I would generally agree with their findings.

(Again, thanks for the bump)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also looked up the author, his background is high-energy physics and particle physics. He's not even a climate scientist, he doesn't even list his own paper on his list of publications. Not very cited, either. But I doubt brent would know that, nor even do the slightest bit of work reading the full text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Well, you contradict yourself. They said the world has warmed 1C from pre-industrial era. But you have pages and pages of posts that denies any warming has happened at all.

I defer to NOAA.  I agree with 1C of warming in the last century and a half.  I also shared, according to NOAA, that there has been no additional warming in the last 6+ years (despite ever rising CO2).  If the mild warming has slowed/stopped and has not been accompanied by meteorological Armageddon, the whole “climate crisis” is just a giant nothing burger. (A very expensive nothing burger)

Again thanks for the bump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually slight correction - this paper has zero citations. Lots of right-wing blogs and tweets about it though.

4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

If the mild warming has slowed/stopped

Has the NOAA said that it won't get any hotter?

Also why are you not talking about your paper anymore. Did you actually read the full text?

Edited by olofscience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2022 at 2:33 PM, brenthutch said:

(BTW thanks for the continual responses, it keeps this post at the top of the page)

 

On 2/11/2022 at 2:53 PM, brenthutch said:

Again thanks for the bump

Alright, Mods, by his own words he is more than just trolling us all. 

Share this post


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

Ten responses…ten about me and zero on the topic of the original post.  Although I am flattered it hardly advances the conversation.

It would advance the conversation if you actually read the contents of the links you actually post...have you read the paper?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, olofscience said:

You haven't, as expected :rofl: well we can't discuss the paper then, can we?

I have, and please don’t ask me if I agree with every sentence.  Read the article, and please share with the group about what you thought about it.  Again please don’t make it about me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally! Here goes:

  1. As I've already mentioned, this article has ZERO scientific citations.
  2. Even the author himself doesn't list this article among his publications
  3. He acknowledges that the "mean temperature and SSTs show pronounced and statistically significant warming trends". You don't.
  4. He pretty much says: "EXCLUDING heat waves, if we look at extreme weather like storms, they haven't increased in frequency according to my analysis"
  5. But even with all his denials, he acknowledges that there has been an upward trend: "Therefore, after adjusting the time series to take into account the smaller observational capacities of the past, there remains only a small nominally positive upward trend".

So:

1)I hate heat waves, they're annoying and they kill lots of people. Not to mention the wildfires caused by them. The paper acknowledges they have increased in severity and frequency.

2)Even without checking his extrapolation methods to account for lower observational capacity before satellites, he still found a positive upward trend. It depends on the method you use for filling in the data gaps. But if we only include the years where we have complete data, there's actually a more significant upward trend.

3)This paper has zero scientific citations which shows how highly regarded this paper is: not very.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fine with most of your criticisms of the paper, but given that it was only published on Jan 13 of this year how many citations do you think would be normal?  I don't know about your field, but in mine there would be zero chance that I could cite a paper in a manuscript, submit my manuscript to a journal, get it through the review process, and have it published in just one month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GeorgiaDon said:

I'm fine with most of your criticisms of the paper, but given that it was only published on Jan 13 of this year how many citations do you think would be normal?  I don't know about your field, but in mine there would be zero chance that I could cite a paper in a manuscript, submit my manuscript to a journal, get it through the review process, and have it published in just one month.

Good point, but given that his actual field is high-energy particle physics, not climate science, I won't be holding my breath waiting for citations. And it shows that it's not his field - relative to the current state of the art in climate science and modelling, his analysis was rather simplistic and in my opinion not very interesting.

There's currently a gap between the global climate models and modelling local weather events (like cyclones), but with supercomputers getting faster and faster the gap is getting narrower and narrower. It won't ever be perfect but there are far more interesting things you can do to estimate the actual occurrence of extreme weather in pre-industrial times. And reading the paper it kept making strawmen arguments - as if cyclones and storms are the only thing we need to worry about - that I wasn't really convinced the author wasn't letting emotions guide his analysis.

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.

0