Re: Banter Thread 9.0

[weatherwatchermom]

I’m usually pretty optimistic. But I tracked hard AF the past 2 weeks for likely a grand total of like 4-5” over 3 events. Juice not worth the squeeze. Taking a much needed break from looking at this stuff every day.

After today I plan on briefly examine the ensembles this weekend to see how the next couple of weeks shape up but I am right there with you Matty.  Righty there with you.  You should take a trip to OTI.  There is a great bar there called the coconut lounge for this exact thing.

Thank you Doc for the OTI Coconut Lounge boost! You long range guys all deserve R&R there!

Might check in..lol but for now I am planning on cleaning out the attic..son goes back to school tom and husband left for a business trip today! so shhhh...I can throw out/donate  a lot being home alone and no one to say...what is that??? and this week will be warmer so not as cold up there...

Mom, non weather question, but are you familiar with Little Silver? My Aunt, Uncle and Cousins lived on Willow Drive and some 62 years ago , my one cousin and I would walk up a little ways to a little soda shop/lunchenette called the Sugar Bar to buy balsa wood planes with rubber bands.Also remember walking to Fort Monmouth.Exit 109.

those are close to me. Fort Monmouth will be going thru a big change. I heard they are going to make it into a tv and film production facility. I think that will be good for the area. My dr is in little silver..

[weatherwatchermom]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12992259/explosions-sun-impact-earth.html?ico=related-replace

Mugs for you

[weatherwatchermom]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12992259/explosions-sun-impact-earth.html?ico=related-replace

Mugs for you

[billg315]

I usually avoid the "global warming has killed our snow"/"winters will never again be what they were before around here" arguments on the board because 1.) I've heard this argument made several times since the 1980s and usually it only takes a few winters before it's disproven by another stretch of AN snowfall winters; and 2.) It's the least productive debate to have next to modern day politics (which thankfully we rarely touch on in this forum).

I will simply say, to those who believe that winter is dead, snowmen are extinct, snowplows can be broken down and repurposed to tropical slushy machines, and that snowfall amounts around here are somehow decreasing from the "norm" and that in the past all of our winters were just big cold snowfests every year, please go to the chart below to view ACTUAL snowfall totals over the past hundred years or so. I don't ask you to reach any conclusions one way or another, but you should at least look at the chart (pay close attention to the late 1920s/early 1930s, 1950s, early 1970s, late 1980s, late 1990s and others) to see if in fact it is unusual at all for us to have stretches with well below normal snowfall. Or if going a few years with BN snowfall means winter is dead.
p.s. I know the use of Central Park's data will rankle my friend cp. While the exact totals are in dispute due to the zookeeper's malfeasance, these numbers big picture aren't seasonally inconsistent with other reporting stations in this area. ;-)

https://www.weather.gov/media/okx/Climate/CentralPark/monthlyseasonalsnowfall.pdf

[docstox12]

I usually avoid the "global warming has killed our snow"/"winters will never again be what they were before around here" arguments on the board because 1.) I've heard this argument made several times since the 1980s and usually it only takes a few winters before it's disproven by another stretch of AN snowfall winters; and 2.) It's the least productive debate to have next to modern day politics (which thankfully we rarely touch on in this forum).

I will simply say, to those who believe that winter is dead, snowmen are extinct, snowplows can be broken down and repurposed to tropical slushy machines, and that snowfall amounts around here are somehow decreasing from the "norm" and that in the past all of our winters were just big cold snowfests every year, please go to the chart below to view ACTUAL snowfall totals over the past hundred years or so. I don't ask you to reach any conclusions one way or another, but you should at least look at the chart (pay close attention to the late 1920s/early 1930s, 1950s, early 1970s, late 1980s, late 1990s and others) to see if in fact it is unusual at all for us to have stretches with well below normal snowfall. Or if going a few years with BN snowfall means winter is dead.
p.s. I know the use of Central Park's data will rankle my friend cp. While the exact totals are in dispute due to the zookeeper's malfeasance, these numbers big picture aren't seasonally inconsistent with other reporting stations in this area. ;-)

https://www.weather.gov/media/okx/Climate/CentralPark/monthlyseasonalsnowfall.pdf

I have seen MANY winters since 1960 and I agree with what you say billg.This is the tri state area with many variables that have to come together for a good snow year.
As far as politics go, CP is benevolent dictator of OOTI and OTI runs on a no political party system.Alexander Hamilton called political parties the "most fatal disease" of popular governments.We adhere to the no political party system at OTI and run our Parliament using a lottery system to choose who will serve a one year term.Yes, we have term limits in OTI as well!

Peace,out.

[HectorO]

[quote="billg315"]I usually avoid the "global warming has killed our snow"/"winters will never again be what they were before around here" arguments on the board because 1.) I've heard this argument made several times since the 1980s and usually it only takes a few winters before it's disproven by another stretch of AN snowfall winters; and 2.) It's the least productive debate to have next to modern day politics (which thankfully we rarely touch on in this forum).

I will simply say, to those who believe that winter is dead, snowmen are extinct, snowplows can be broken down and repurposed to tropical slushy machines, and that snowfall amounts around here are somehow decreasing from the "norm" and that in the past all of our winters were just big cold snowfests every year, please go to the chart below to view ACTUAL snowfall totals over the past hundred years or so. I don't ask you to reach any conclusions one way or another, but you should at least look at the chart (pay close attention to the late 1920s/early 1930s, 1950s, early 1970s, late 1980s, late 1990s and others) to see if in fact it is unusual at all for us to have stretches with well below normal snowfall. Or if going a few years with BN snowfall means winter is dead.
p.s. I know the use of Central Park's data will rankle my friend cp. While the exact totals are in dispute due to the zookeeper's malfeasance, these numbers big picture aren't seasonally inconsistent with other reporting stations in this area. ;-)

https://www.weather.gov/media/okx/Climate/CentralPark/monthlyseasonalsnowfall.pdf[/


Many aren't talking about just snowfall. There's talk of also the lack of cold. For snow to happen you just need a certain amount of hours of cold temps to be in the same spot where moisture is at. What has become the norm in this area is most of the week, most of the month actually comprised of mainly milder days with brief shots of cold here and there before we get 40s and 50s again with rain.

If it didn't look like winter outside, it still felt like winter outside in the past. So snow isn't the only factor when claiming Winters aren't what they used to be.

[billg315]

I usually avoid the "global warming has killed our snow"/"winters will never again be what they were before around here" arguments on the board because 1.) I've heard this argument made several times since the 1980s and usually it only takes a few winters before it's disproven by another stretch of AN snowfall winters; and 2.) It's the least productive debate to have next to modern day politics (which thankfully we rarely touch on in this forum).

I will simply say, to those who believe that winter is dead, snowmen are extinct, snowplows can be broken down and repurposed to tropical slushy machines, and that snowfall amounts around here are somehow decreasing from the "norm" and that in the past all of our winters were just big cold snowfests every year, please go to the chart below to view ACTUAL snowfall totals over the past hundred years or so. I don't ask you to reach any conclusions one way or another, but you should at least look at the chart (pay close attention to the late 1920s/early 1930s, 1950s, early 1970s, late 1980s, late 1990s and others) to see if in fact it is unusual at all for us to have stretches with well below normal snowfall. Or if going a few years with BN snowfall means winter is dead.
p.s. I know the use of Central Park's data will rankle my friend cp. While the exact totals are in dispute due to the zookeeper's malfeasance, these numbers big picture aren't seasonally inconsistent with other reporting stations in this area. ;-)

https://www.weather.gov/media/okx/Climate/CentralPark/monthlyseasonalsnowfall.pdf[/


Many aren't talking about just snowfall. There's talk of also the lack of cold. For snow to happen you just need a certain amount of hours of cold temps to be in the same spot where moisture is at. What has become the norm in this area is most of the week, most of the month actually comprised of mainly milder days with brief shots of cold here and there before we get 40s and 50s again with rain.

If it didn't look like winter outside, it still felt like winter outside in the past. So snow isn't the only factor when claiming Winters aren't what they used to be.

Fair points. If seasonal snowfalls maintain usual variability but winters in general become warmer overall that would also be a reason to say winters have changed, so your point is well taken. I don't dispute that snowfall alone would not be the only way to measure (pardon the pun) these things. I also have reached no personal conclusion on whether we are in fact in a significant warming pattern globally (although if so, I think it may be more natural global cycle than human-activity dependent, which is another whole argument) that may indeed affect how our winters play out in the future around here.

But, that said, I still suspect that some of what we remember about winters past, is based on our best/fondest memories of winter (the coldest, snowiest winters) rather than the actual variabilities of those winters which do tend to be more cyclical. And I do believe that it is inevitable that we will have another run of cold snowy winters here sometime in the near future. But hey, I could be wrong. If I were omniscient, I'd be a lot better at sports betting and the lottery.

[amugs]

Global Major Hurricane Frequency vs Solar Activity.

What does the IPCC do with facts like these? pic.twitter.com/Ad13aJLBqv

— Electroverse (@Electroversenet) January 25, 2024

[essexcountypete]

Global Major Hurricane Frequency vs Solar Activity.

What does the IPCC do with facts like these? pic.twitter.com/Ad13aJLBqv

— Electroverse (@Electroversenet) January 25, 2024

This graph has no source and does not indicate where the data comes from. Electroverse posts stuff like this all the time, with no background, no sourcing of who created it, and no info about data source. I just don't find it a credible information resource.

[sroc4]

Global Major Hurricane Frequency vs Solar Activity.

What does the IPCC do with facts like these? pic.twitter.com/Ad13aJLBqv

— Electroverse (@Electroversenet) January 25, 2024

This graph has no source and does not indicate where the data comes from. Electroverse posts stuff like this all the time, with no background, no sourcing of who created it, and no info about data source. I just don't find it a credible information resource.

Pete the source is actually Ryan Maue.  It says it right on the twitter page.  Ryan is a well known meteorologists and research scientist.  Here is the link with appropriate citations to his work and graphics.  

https://climatlas.com/tropical/



Regarding the susspot data.  Feel free to type sunspot cycles since 1900 graphs into your google search and youll find everything you need there.  Then it doesnt take much to simply overlay the data with both graphs and see the relationships.  The X axis is years from both so there isnt much to question there.  

Dont let your potential bias be trigger for a knee jerk reaction.  Climate science IS NOT a foregone conclusion.  Man IS a part of the equation.  BUT alarmists pushing certain agendas will have you believe that its a runaway freight train and that simply is not true.  If it were Manhattan would be underwater by now according to Al Gore.  No one is denying climate change.  But there are question's as to its FULL causes, and its true impacts both short term and long.  The idea that you cant post a contrary opinion to anything today should be such an alarm for everyone.

[essexcountypete]

Thanks Scott! The graphs don't seem to be the same, but I will take a look at all of the data at the link you posted so I can understand better what the it means and what his conclusions are.

Please don't let my skepticism be confused for a knee-jerk reaction, nor confuse it for bias. I haven't espoused any "alarmist" predictions, nor posted anything alarmist. People can post whatever "contrary" stuff they want. The question is whether it can withstand scrutiny.  

Ryan Maue is indeed a well known meteorologist, and a well known climate change skeptic. He was tapped by Trump to head NOAA, teaming up with David Legates, another meteorologist and climate change skeptic who believes excess carbon dioxide is "good for plants" and thinks global warming is "harmless". This was the WaPo headline when Maue got the job..."White House taps second controversial scientist to steer major U.S. climate change report - NOAA chief scientist Ryan Maue joins climate skeptic David Legates."

Maue spent years working at the Cato Institute, and the Center for the Study of Science. They are well-known for their mission to raise uncertainty, to put it mildly, about climate science. Before that Maue worked at WeatherBell with Joe Bastardi, another well-known climate skeptic. Bastardi worked with Joe D’Aleo, founder of ICECAP, another organization that promotes climate change skepticism. Maue is certainly not that outspoken compared to some of these guys, he's more a "lukewarmer" who doesn't deny a human-induced effect on climate, but it's important to understand his background and where he's spent his career.

Hey, I'm a big fan of skepticism, and I personally play my own devil's advocate on this topic and most topics in life, so I try to remain open to any new information. I'm also a big fan of transparency, so sourcing and background matter greatly to me, just as much as accurate data, so I appreciate the background that you sent. I will take a look.

[HectorO]

I usually avoid the "global warming has killed our snow"/"winters will never again be what they were before around here" arguments on the board because 1.) I've heard this argument made several times since the 1980s and usually it only takes a few winters before it's disproven by another stretch of AN snowfall winters; and 2.) It's the least productive debate to have next to modern day politics (which thankfully we rarely touch on in this forum).

I will simply say, to those who believe that winter is dead, snowmen are extinct, snowplows can be broken down and repurposed to tropical slushy machines, and that snowfall amounts around here are somehow decreasing from the "norm" and that in the past all of our winters were just big cold snowfests every year, please go to the chart below to view ACTUAL snowfall totals over the past hundred years or so. I don't ask you to reach any conclusions one way or another, but you should at least look at the chart (pay close attention to the late 1920s/early 1930s, 1950s, early 1970s, late 1980s, late 1990s and others) to see if in fact it is unusual at all for us to have stretches with well below normal snowfall. Or if going a few years with BN snowfall means winter is dead.
p.s. I know the use of Central Park's data will rankle my friend cp. While the exact totals are in dispute due to the zookeeper's malfeasance, these numbers big picture aren't seasonally inconsistent with other reporting stations in this area. ;-)

https://www.weather.gov/media/okx/Climate/CentralPark/monthlyseasonalsnowfall.pdf[/


Many aren't talking about just snowfall. There's talk of also the lack of cold. For snow to happen you just need a certain amount of hours of cold temps to be in the same spot where moisture is at. What has become the norm in this area is most of the week, most of the month actually comprised of mainly milder days with brief shots of cold here and there before we get 40s and 50s again with rain.

If it didn't look like winter outside, it still felt like winter outside in the past. So snow isn't the only factor when claiming Winters aren't what they used to be.

Fair points. If seasonal snowfalls maintain usual variability but winters in general become warmer overall that would also be a reason to say winters have changed, so your point is well taken. I don't dispute that snowfall alone would not be the only way to measure (pardon the pun) these things. I also have reached no personal conclusion on whether we are in fact in a significant warming pattern globally (although if so, I think it may be more natural global cycle than human-activity dependent, which is another whole argument) that may indeed affect how our winters play out in the future around here.

But, that said, I still suspect that some of what we remember about winters past, is based on our best/fondest memories of winter (the coldest, snowiest winters) rather than the actual variabilities of those winters which do tend to be more cyclical. And I do believe that it is inevitable that we will have another run of cold snowy winters here sometime in the near future. But hey, I could be wrong. If I were omniscient, I'd be a lot better at sports betting and the lottery.

Those are good points. What concerns me is that even if this is normal, in the sense that Earth has gone through warm ups and cool Downs several times. What concerns me is that many experts believe that we're still in the warm-up phase and each of those phases can last couple hundred years with this warm-up happening right after the mid 1800 sometime.

[sroc4]

Thanks Scott! The graphs don't seem to be the same, but I will take a look at all of the data at the link you posted so I can understand better what the it means and what his conclusions are.

Please don't let my skepticism be confused for a knee-jerk reaction, nor confuse it for bias. I haven't espoused any "alarmist" predictions, nor posted anything alarmist. People can post whatever "contrary" stuff they want. The question is whether it can withstand scrutiny.  

Ryan Maue is indeed a well known meteorologist, and a well known climate change skeptic. He was tapped by Trump to head NOAA, teaming up with David Legates, another meteorologist and climate change skeptic who believes excess carbon dioxide is "good for plants" and thinks global warming is "harmless". This was the WaPo headline when Maue got the job..."White House taps second controversial scientist to steer major U.S. climate change report - NOAA chief scientist Ryan Maue joins climate skeptic David Legates."

Maue spent years working at the Cato Institute, and the Center for the Study of Science. They are well-known for their mission to raise uncertainty, to put it mildly, about climate science. Before that Maue worked at WeatherBell with Joe Bastardi, another well-known climate skeptic. Bastardi worked with Joe D’Aleo, founder of ICECAP, another organization that promotes climate change skepticism. Maue is certainly not that outspoken compared to some of these guys, he's more a "lukewarmer" who doesn't deny a human-induced effect on climate, but it's important to understand his background and where he's spent his career.

Hey, I'm a big fan of skepticism, and I personally play my own devil's advocate on this topic and most topics in life, so I try to remain open to any new information. I'm also a big fan of transparency, so sourcing and background matter greatly to me, just as much as accurate data, so I appreciate the background that you sent. I will take a look.

Fair enough.  Problem I have though is basically everything you just said in this post is merely regurgitating talking points.  There literally is no substance to any of it.  Not by any fault of your own, but if you google his name the first 50 hits are from left wing media outlets claiming hes a "climate denier", climate skeptic, "Trump Appointee".  There is zero context to this stuff.  They use key words to invoke an emotional response. If you are one who suffers from Trump derangement syndrome then the mere association with anything Trump immediately has you convinced this guy is wrong and a cook. If you fully believe man made global warming is 100% the cause to the warming planet then the words "climate denier" will immediately invoke a similar emotion and your mind will have been made up for you already. The words they use is no coincidence. Google is owned by one of the richest and most powerful men on the planet in Bill Gates and an algorithm that suppresses stories supporting alternative views is 100% a thing. The suppression of the discussion of natural immunity and hunter bidens lap top a couple of years ago are two perfect examples of how this was done.

When you actually start to dive into the individual articles on Ryan Maue after a google search basically what you find is that they are all like the movie Inception.  There is layer upon layer of authors telling you that there is this proof and that but what proof is their really?  For instance:

In this article: https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/533913-officials-ousted-from-white-house-after-papers-casting-doubt-on/

you get this excerpt:  

And a paper casting doubt on whether human-caused climate change was conclusively impacting hurricane activity in the Atlantic was attributed to Maue. There has been research finding that climate change is making hurricanes more intense.

One paper takes on other topics like aiming to link climate change to sun cycles, though according to NASA, recent warming is too great to be caused by the sun.


The underlined words are links that takes you to the next article that allegedly is the proof/citation that the author of The Hill article is using that shows climate change is making hurricanes more intense.  When you click on that it takes you here:  https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/07/how-climate-change-is-making-hurricanes-more-dangerous/

As you start reading through this one you realize that this author, like the author of The Hill article is also nothing to do with climate research or a meteorologist directly; but rather just another journalist investigating.  As you read on in this one you find statements like this:

Generally speaking, the warmer the water temperatures, the more heat energy is available and the higher the potential for tropical cyclones to develop. So it’s reasonable to assume that as humans continue to release planet-warming greenhouse gases, the likelihood of tropical cyclone activity increases.

By and large, that is true, but in the real world it’s a little more complicated than that. The conventional wisdom is that storm intensity will increase but storm frequency will either decrease or remain unchanged.

When asked about the conflicting research findings on cyclone frequency, Emanuel said by email: “My own view is that we really do not know at this point whether the overall global frequency of [tropical cyclones] will increase, decrease, or stay the same. It is an area of active research.”

Regarding Intensity of the hurricanes you find this:

In a 2015 paper using future model simulations, Knutson found an “increase in average cyclone intensity, precipitation rates, and the number and occurrence days of very intense category 4 and 5 storms.” Specifically, the simulations calculated a 28% increase in category 4 and 5 storms globally, with a 335% increase in the northeast Pacific and a 42% increase in the North Atlantic.

In Bhatia’s 2018 study, the intensity gains are even more alarming. The HiFLOR simulations project the number of major cyclones (category 3, 4, and 5) to increase by 20% globally and 29% in the Atlantic by 2081-2100. But HiFLOR suggests a significant increase in major systems even sooner.

So this author is using simulations by climate models to sound the alarm. But if this board has taught us anything is that ANY LONG RANGE MODEL is subject to MAJOR flaws the longer out in time you try to go. If you click on the link for one of the study's cited in this article it takes you here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1713-0

In part of the conclusions by the authors you get this statement:

An important finding is that the proportion of intense hurricanes appears to initially increase in response to warming oceans, but then approach a saturation level after which no further increases occur. There is tentative evidence that the saturation level will differ across the tropical cyclone basins and that the global proportion of Cat 4–5 hurricanes may already be near it’s saturation level of ~40–50 %. This has considerable societal implications that are being examined in a companion study.



So what this author is saying is that based on model simulations thgat even if the global temps increase by 5* there is an upper limit as to how much the number of strong hurricanes will form and that we may have already reached that upper limit.


So I hope you can see that its nothing more than smoke and mirrors. If you have actually taken the time to read this far in my post and if you actually attempted to read and understand the actual research being cited is as flawed as any other research. There should at least be a little skepticism in all of us to any narrative that involves science that is settled. Shit it may well be that anthropogenic global warming is all she wrote. But if it is, why suppress alternating ideas? Seriously. In an open and free society all ideas should be listened to and presented and let the best argument win. Let these alternate ideas be out there on full display for critique by the experts. When there is deliberate censorship, and suppression of ideas that go against a narrative, that my friends should warrant your ears to perk up and ask why? Why cant I decide for myself? Why cant the mainstream media present ALL arguments and let you and me read through the information and supporting documents regarding the suns influence on the climate, or the underwater seismic and volcanic activity and its role in warming of the oceans and decide for myself which argument sounds more reasonable? Is it because Im too stupid? I cant possibly understand these things myself so I need a government or a handful of powerful elites with 98% of the worlds wealth tell me what to believe. That's essentially it in a nut shell.

With that I'm done. I know its long but it frustrates me to see how easy it is for very smart people to be so easily influenced by their own biases. I am not innocent in this. I have my bias's, but I recognize I have them and do everything I can to stay as open minded as possible. This has allowed me to let in some of this other information and think about it without someone else telling me what to think and I can see that there are least questions regarding climate that are unanswered and need more research. The science is NEVER settled. Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to push a narrative.

[sroc4]

The last thing I’ll post on this is this link. You want to be objective then take some time and try to absorb some of the info in this. This at the very least should spark questions about the current narrative that the climate science is settled.

https://theethicalskeptic.com/tag/core-exothermic-cycle/

[amugs]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12992259/explosions-sun-impact-earth.html?ico=related-replace

Mugs for you

Thanks MOM and we .issues a big one on 1-22 and I mean BIG ONE!! It would have very serious for our planet. No drama just fact.

EARTH JUST GOT LUCKY | Super Eruption from the Sun pic.twitter.com/RZmGrp7mbk

— SpaceWeatherNews (@SunWeatherMan) January 22, 2024

[dkodgis]

Doc, when was that warm winter when we were in polo shirts barbecuing and eating on our decks? It was almost 70

[frank 638]

[dkodgis]

Geez Louise. The cherry trees won’t know what to do

[docstox12]

Doc, when was that warm winter when we were in polo shirts barbecuing and eating on our decks?  It was almost 70

Damian, I remember February 2018 when it was in the high 60's or low 70's a few days.Leaves were coming out.Then we got blasted with 27 inches of snow in March,LOL.

[jmanley32]

Hey all took a bit of a break, I see that there was a threat for tomorrow but expecting a dreary cold ran looks like. 3.0 inches through Feb. If we do not get going in Feb or march this would be the saddest snow year even worse than last year. Hoping something can change, is it too much to ask for one double digit snowfall? Good luck to those N/W tomorrow.

[jmanley32]

This has to be a joke....

[CPcantmeasuresnow]

This has to be a joke....

No joke, 80 degrees in the nations capital in January. Seeing things I've never seen in my lifetime, most of which aren't my cup of tea.

[Frank_Wx]

Hey all took a bit of a break, I see that there was a threat for tomorrow but expecting a dreary cold ran looks like. 3.0 inches through Feb. If we do not get going in Feb or march this would be the saddest snow year even worse than last year. Hoping something can change, is it too much to ask for one double digit snowfall? Good luck to those N/W tomorrow.

I agree John. This winter is a solid F so far.

[docstox12]

Hey all took a bit of a break, I see that there was a threat for tomorrow but expecting a dreary cold ran looks like. 3.0 inches through Feb. If we do not get going in Feb or march this would be the saddest snow year even worse than last year. Hoping something can change, is it too much to ask for one double digit snowfall? Good luck to those N/W tomorrow.

I agree John. This winter is a solid F so far.

Yet another cutter with a lot of moisture, the pattern set in stone this season.Snow events are disorganized and moisture starved.This one was close, a Catskill Special.

[phil155]

My fingers are crossed for February to bring something but maybe it is because I have Covid right now and feel sick that I am not my normal upbeat and positive self

[docstox12]

My fingers are crossed for February to bring something but maybe it is because I have Covid right now and feel sick that I am not my normal upbeat and positive self

Get well fast phil, sorry you got it.

[essexcountypete]

Thanks Scott! The graphs don't seem to be the same, but I will take a look at all of the data at the link you posted so I can understand better what the it means and what his conclusions are.

Please don't let my skepticism be confused for a knee-jerk reaction, nor confuse it for bias. I haven't espoused any "alarmist" predictions, nor posted anything alarmist. People can post whatever "contrary" stuff they want. The question is whether it can withstand scrutiny.  

Ryan Maue is indeed a well known meteorologist, and a well known climate change skeptic. He was tapped by Trump to head NOAA, teaming up with David Legates, another meteorologist and climate change skeptic who believes excess carbon dioxide is "good for plants" and thinks global warming is "harmless". This was the WaPo headline when Maue got the job..."White House taps second controversial scientist to steer major U.S. climate change report - NOAA chief scientist Ryan Maue joins climate skeptic David Legates."

Maue spent years working at the Cato Institute, and the Center for the Study of Science. They are well-known for their mission to raise uncertainty, to put it mildly, about climate science. Before that Maue worked at WeatherBell with Joe Bastardi, another well-known climate skeptic. Bastardi worked with Joe D’Aleo, founder of ICECAP, another organization that promotes climate change skepticism. Maue is certainly not that outspoken compared to some of these guys, he's more a "lukewarmer" who doesn't deny a human-induced effect on climate, but it's important to understand his background and where he's spent his career.

Hey, I'm a big fan of skepticism, and I personally play my own devil's advocate on this topic and most topics in life, so I try to remain open to any new information. I'm also a big fan of transparency, so sourcing and background matter greatly to me, just as much as accurate data, so I appreciate the background that you sent. I will take a look.

Fair enough.  Problem I have though is basically everything you just said in this post is merely regurgitating talking points.  There literally is no substance to any of it.  Not by any fault of your own, but if you google his name the first 50 hits are from left wing media outlets claiming hes a "climate denier", climate skeptic, "Trump Appointee".  There is zero context to this stuff.  They use key words to invoke an emotional response.  If you are one who suffers from Trump derangement syndrome then the mere association with anything Trump immediately has you convinced this guy is wrong and a cook.  If you fully believe man made global warming is 100% the cause to the warming planet then the words "climate denier" will immediately invoke a similar emotion and your mind will have been made up for you already.  The words they use is no coincidence.  Google is owned by one of the richest and most powerful men on the planet in Bill Gates and an algorithm that suppresses stories supporting alternative views is 100% a thing. The suppression of the discussion of natural immunity and hunter bidens lap top a couple of years ago are two perfect examples of how this was done.

When you actually start to dive into the individual articles on Ryan Maue after a google search basically what you find is that they are all like the movie Inception.  There is layer upon layer of authors telling you that there is this proof and that but what proof is their really?  For instance:

In this article: https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/533913-officials-ousted-from-white-house-after-papers-casting-doubt-on/

you get this excerpt:  

And a paper casting doubt on whether human-caused climate change was conclusively impacting hurricane activity in the Atlantic was attributed to Maue. There has been research finding that climate change is making hurricanes more intense.

One paper takes on other topics like aiming to link climate change to sun cycles, though according to NASA, recent warming is too great to be caused by the sun.


The underlined words are links that takes you to the next article that allegedly is the proof/citation that the author of The Hill article is using that shows climate change is making hurricanes more intense.  When you click on that it takes you here:  https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/07/how-climate-change-is-making-hurricanes-more-dangerous/

As you start reading through this one you realize that this author, like the author of The Hill article is also nothing to do with climate research or a meteorologist directly; but rather just another journalist investigating.  As you read on in this one you find statements like this:

Generally speaking, the warmer the water temperatures, the more heat energy is available and the higher the potential for tropical cyclones to develop. So it’s reasonable to assume that as humans continue to release planet-warming greenhouse gases, the likelihood of tropical cyclone activity increases.

By and large, that is true, but in the real world it’s a little more complicated than that. The conventional wisdom is that storm intensity will increase but storm frequency will either decrease or remain unchanged.

When asked about the conflicting research findings on cyclone frequency, Emanuel said by email: “My own view is that we really do not know at this point whether the overall global frequency of [tropical cyclones] will increase, decrease, or stay the same. It is an area of active research.”

Regarding Intensity of the hurricanes you find this:

In a 2015 paper using future model simulations, Knutson found an “increase in average cyclone intensity, precipitation rates, and the number and occurrence days of very intense category 4 and 5 storms.” Specifically, the simulations calculated a 28% increase in category 4 and 5 storms globally, with a 335% increase in the northeast Pacific and a 42% increase in the North Atlantic.

In Bhatia’s 2018 study, the intensity gains are even more alarming. The HiFLOR simulations project the number of major cyclones (category 3, 4, and 5) to increase by 20% globally and 29% in the Atlantic by 2081-2100. But HiFLOR suggests a significant increase in major systems even sooner.

So this author is using simulations by climate models to sound the alarm.  But if this board has taught us anything is that ANY LONG RANGE MODEL is subject to MAJOR flaws the longer out in time you try to go.  If you click on the link for one of the study's cited in this article it takes you here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1713-0

In part of the conclusions by the authors you get this statement:

An important finding is that the proportion of intense hurricanes appears to initially increase in response to warming oceans, but then approach a saturation level after which no further increases occur. There is tentative evidence that the saturation level will differ across the tropical cyclone basins and that the global proportion of Cat 4–5 hurricanes may already be near it’s saturation level of ~40–50 %. This has considerable societal implications that are being examined in a companion study.



So what this author is saying is that based on model simulations thgat even if the global temps increase by 5* there is an upper limit as to how much the number of strong hurricanes will form and that we may have already reached that upper limit.  


So I hope you can see that its nothing more than smoke and mirrors.  If you have actually taken the time to read this far in my post and if you actually attempted to read and understand the actual research being cited is as flawed as any other research.  There should at least be a little skepticism in all of us to any narrative that involves science that is settled.  Shit it may well be that anthropogenic global warming is all she wrote.  But if it is, why suppress alternating ideas?  Seriously.  In an open and free society all ideas should be listened to and presented and let the best argument win.  Let these alternate ideas be out there on full display for critique by the experts.  When there is deliberate censorship, and suppression of ideas that go against a narrative, that my friends should warrant your ears to perk up and ask why?  Why cant I decide for myself?   Why cant the mainstream media present ALL arguments and let you and me read through the information and supporting documents regarding the suns influence on the climate, or the underwater seismic and volcanic activity and its role in warming of the oceans and decide for myself which argument sounds more reasonable?  Is it because Im too stupid?  I cant possibly understand these things myself so I need a government or a handful of powerful elites with 98% of the worlds wealth tell me what to believe.  That's essentially it in a nut shell.  

With that I'm done.  I know its long but it frustrates me to see how easy it is for very smart people to be so easily influenced by their own biases.  I am not innocent in this.  I have my bias's, but I recognize I have them and do everything I can to stay as open minded as possible.  This has allowed me to let in some of this other information and think about it without someone else telling me what to think and I can see that there are least questions regarding climate that are unanswered and need more research.  The science is NEVER settled.  Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to push a narrative.    

Has that "you're too smart not to believe what I believe" thing actually worked for you before? I must say, that level of arrogance is truly impressive, but don't expect it to help convince people that what you have to say is valid or true. It's ironic that you call my entirely factual comment emotional, considering your rather passionate reply. Clearly you don't like what I wrote, but all the words are my own and everything I said is accurate. Invoking "the media", "natural immunity", and Hunter Biden is distraction, but it does feed nicely into the standard conspiracy noise that allows one to ignore real facts en masse as one pleases.

I read your post and I looked at the links. The Hill piece, yeah it's a news story, written by a journalist, and the fact that the author has "nothing to do with climate research" is meaningless. There's nothing inaccurate in it at all.

The Yale Connection piece that the Hill author cites, that you also claim has "nothing to do with climate research or a meteorologist directly; but rather just another journalist investigating" was actually written by a real life meteorologist, none other that our own Jeff Berardelli. It's actually a great but of writing. He cites multiple sources and multiple studies, and has 40 different citations to climate research, all linked clearly for easy review. You choose to note the two studies using simulations, and oddly ignore all his other valid citations, and you seem to think that somehow debunks what Berardelli is saying. It doesn't. The idea that models or simulations are not valid and useful tools for him to cite, despite the fact that we use them everyday to help us predict the weather, more accurately and further into the future than ever before, is ridiculous. Models have limitations, and the study authors, as you posted, admitted to their potential limits, but you use that as an excuse to disclaim the data and claim their conclusions are invalid. You have no basis to make that claim, and you've debunked nothing.

You picked a "mainstream media" news story that you thought you could debunk, attacked it's source as "smoke and mirrors", and your basis for doing so is "model suck". That's not skepticism, that's your biases blinding you.

[Sponsored content]