Climate Cult Exploits Harvey

[Dashinka 23,234]

Just now, Il Mango Dulce said:

They speak directly to the lack of credibility of the scientist cited in the article..why is that not relevant? 

Because the question was directly related to historical records that are not dependent on any way with anyone's theories or hypotheses.  Do you deny the facts of the historical records?

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

Because the question was directly related to historical records that are not dependent on any way with anyone's theories or hypotheses.  Do you deny the facts of the historical records?

what is the topic of this thread then is the title 

 

"Climate Cult Exploits Harvey" 

The core claim in your "article" is this: 

 

"Roger Pielke, Jr. is a leading expert on extreme weather; he has been personally and professionally attacked by climate alarmists for his scientific evidence debunking the false claim that climate change causes more extreme weather events such as hurricanes. “Scientific assessments, including those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. government’s latest National Climate Assessment, indicate no long-term increases in the frequency or strength of hurricanes in the U.S. Neither has there been an increase in floods, droughts, and tornadoes, though heat waves and heavy precipitation have become more common,” Pielke wrote in Friday’s Wall Street Journal.

 

Can we establish a connection between the frequency of Tropical storms and the change in surface Seawater temperatures?  No  Can we establish a link between the intensity of tropical storms and the change in the oceans? probably  Are other factors like land use increasing the impact of these storms?   Is embracing the nearly Universal consensus that Climate change is anthropegenic and a serious threat to civilization Cult behavior?   Nope.

 

 

 

 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 hour ago, IDWAF said:

Here's the facts, Jack... In order for there to be global warming, things have to be getting (wait for it) WARMER!!  And guess what?  In an era of global cooling, temps have to be trending towards COOLER!!

 

It's called climate change.  Been going on for millions of years.  Long before man was around.  It's a natural cycle, neither of which can be sustained for long (globally speaking.  In man years, many lifetimes).

1

Did we clear up your science degree issue ( unless you can bring us a credible source)

Edited September 5, 2017 by Il Mango Dulce

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

59 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Do you think being labeled a racist nazi for voting for Trump is fun?

Just to be clear, I never accused you of being a racist nazi and you are not implying that I did.  

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Based on your bringing up (twice) my science degree (or lack thereof), do you think that people who do not possess a science degree incapable of reviewing data presented of the earth's climate history, and making accurate observations based on that?  There is no known issue with my scientific degree, FWIW.

 

And since it is obviously something you care about enough to ask, allow me to ask you what particular scientific realm YOUR degree is in?

 

9 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

Did we clear up your science degree issue ( unless you can bring us a credible source)

 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

6 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Based on your bringing up (twice) my science degree (or lack thereof), do you think that people who do not possess a science degree incapable of reviewing data presented of the earth's climate history, and making accurate observations based on that?  There is no known issue with my scientific degree, FWIW.

 

And since it is obviously something you care about enough to ask, allow me to ask you what particular scientific realm YOUR degree is in?

 

 

1

I don't have a degree in the physical sciences. As you pointed out, I am not presenting original work. 

[Dashinka 23,234]

1 hour ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

what is the topic of this thread then is the title 

 

"Climate Cult Exploits Harvey" 

The core claim in your "article" is this: 

 

"Roger Pielke, Jr. is a leading expert on extreme weather; he has been personally and professionally attacked by climate alarmists for his scientific evidence debunking the false claim that climate change causes more extreme weather events such as hurricanes. “Scientific assessments, including those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. government’s latest National Climate Assessment, indicate no long-term increases in the frequency or strength of hurricanes in the U.S. Neither has there been an increase in floods, droughts, and tornadoes, though heat waves and heavy precipitation have become more common,” Pielke wrote in Friday’s Wall Street Journal.

 

Can we establish a connection between the frequency of Tropical storms and the change in surface Seawater temperatures?  No  Can we establish a link between the intensity of tropical storms and the change in the oceans? probably  Are other factors like land use increasing the impact of these storms?   Is embracing the nearly Universal consensus that Climate change is anthropegenic and a serious threat to civilization Cult behavior?   Nope.

 

 

 

 

How do you establish the link between the intensity and the change in the oceans?  This is why I asked the question regarding the numbers that hit land in the earlier period and those that hit land in the latter period.  If the ocean change is producing larger more intense storms then why is this the case.  Just in case we need more facts, Harvey was the 7th most intense storm to hit Texas.

 

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/348317-scientists-global-warming-drove-up-harvey-rainfall-totals

 

Here is another story that debunks the whole hurricane global warming connection.

 

http://ijr.com/the-declaration/2017/09/963287-5-hurricane-charts-climate-alarmists-dont-want-see-rush-politicize-harvey/

 

 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

24 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

How do you establish the link between the intensity and the change in the oceans?  This is why I asked the question regarding the numbers that hit land in the earlier period and those that hit land in the latter period.  If the ocean change is producing larger more intense storms then why is this the case.  Just in case we need more facts, Harvey was the 7th most intense storm to hit Texas.

 

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/348317-scientists-global-warming-drove-up-harvey-rainfall-totals

 

Here is another story that debunks the whole hurricane global warming connection.

 

http://ijr.com/the-declaration/2017/09/963287-5-hurricane-charts-climate-alarmists-dont-want-see-rush-politicize-harvey/

 

 

 

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/extreme-weather-climate-change.html#.Wa8gY7KGNaQ

Edited September 5, 2017 by Il Mango Dulce

[spookyturtle 9,465]

4 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

So tell me how global warming accounts for the fact that 14 major tropical cyclones made landfall in the US between 1926 and 1969, but only 4 have done so from 1970 through 2017?  Aren't we much warmer now, so shouldn't the frequency and intensities of storms be reversed for those periods?

The current rating scale wasn't developed until 1971 and wasn't put into mainstream use until 1974. That may have something to do with it, storms are rated differently now. Just like the Blizzard of 1978 wasn't a Category 5 extreme storm by today's standard. 

Edited September 5, 2017 by spookyturtle

[Dashinka 23,234]

3 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

The current rating scale wasn't developed until 1971 and wasn't put into mainstream use until 1974. That may have something to do with it, storms are rated differently now. 

The older storms can and have been re-scaled since the Saffir-Simpson scale is based on wind speed which is known for the older storms.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

The older storms can and have been re-scaled since the Saffir-Simpson scale is based on wind speed which is known for the older storms.

Lots of hurricane records set in 2005. 

https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/record2005.asp

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Another bit of information. 11 of the top 15 busiest hurricane seasons have been since 1995.

 

https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/top10.asp

[Dashinka 23,234]

6 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

Another bit of information. 11 of the top 15 busiest hurricane seasons have been since 1995.

 

https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/top10.asp

This is where your idea of measuring and tracking storms in the period before satellite tracking may come into play.  Certainly before the 1970s or whenever they actually started using satellites to track and record storms there could have been many storms that formed stayed in the Atlantic and eventually fizzled out without anyone noticing unless a ship reported it.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

I'm guessing that liberals and Democrats have nothing to do with the number of hurricanes that occur. I used weather records to get a little bit of info which does nothing to prove or disprove climate change. 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

15 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

I'm guessing that liberals and Democrats have nothing to do with the number of hurricanes that occur. I used weather records to get a little bit of info which does nothing to prove or disprove climate change. 

Hurricanes start in the central region of the Atlantic next to Venezuela. Leftists are in control of Venezuela proving that they are increasing the hurricane frequency.