Changes in Tropical Cyclone Intensity & Track

[Tonali99]

[QUOTE=Cliffhanger;3377058]Hahaha. I love these topics, it really brings out the idiots who probably have never written a grant application in their lives and clearly have no idea how science works. "Fake science" is an oxymoron just like "alternative facts".

Perhaps we should just lock them all up in a big room, chuck in some smallpox virus and see what happens. My hypothesis is that they would be screaming out for a scientifically developed vaccine within 10 minutes. Now, I wonder if I could get a grant to run this experiment?[/QUOTE

Good idea, but take their cell phones away too. Oh, and masks don't work and are against my rights. But seatbelts and helmet laws are fine.
Both help one to survive. Or should I say all three?
Do they know the oceans are 8 inches nhigher than 70 years ago? Ask anyone in Charleston or Miami on a high tide.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lateral Hazard

That is weather, not climate. A common mistake. Weather is short term and climate is long term.

Very true in the abstract, but how many times do we see short-term weather events or natural disasters being cited as evidence of long-term climate change? Or the opposite, i.e. relatively benign periods dismissed as evidence of long-term CC, and instead attributed to short-term weather? Most of this is not the fault of mainstream scientists, but rather partisans who are distorting the science for their own preferred political goals, or media outlets who stand to gain from spouting unsupported alarmism.

[boatman61]

[QUOTE=Tonali99;3381148]

Originally Posted by Cliffhanger

Hahaha. I love these topics, it really brings out the idiots who probably have never written a grant application in their lives and clearly have no idea how science works. "Fake science" is an oxymoron just like "alternative facts".

Perhaps we should just lock them all up in a big room, chuck in some smallpox virus and see what happens. My hypothesis is that they would be screaming out for a scientifically developed vaccine within 10 minutes. Now, I wonder if I could get a grant to run this experiment?[/QUOTE

Good idea, but take their cell phones away too. Oh, and masks don't work and are against my rights. But seatbelts and helmet laws are fine.
Both help one to survive. Or should I say all three?
Do they know the oceans are 8 inches nhigher than 70 years ago? Ask anyone in Charleston or Miami on a high tide.

Are you sure it's higher sea levels and not subsidence..???
To much concrete and to many people on what is basically Swamplands..

[GordMay]

[QUOTE=boatman61;3381195]

Originally Posted by Tonali99

Are you sure it's higher sea levels and not subsidence..???
To much concrete and to many people on what is basically Swamplands..

Yes, but unfortunately, in some local places, it's both.

Climate-induced mean sea-level rise, and vertical land movements, including natural and human-induced subsidence in sedimentary coastal lowlands, have combined to change relative sea levels around the world’s coasts.
Global mean sea level has risen about 8–9 inches (21–24 centimeters) since 1880, with about a third of that coming in just the last two and a half decades. The rising water level is mostly due to a combination of meltwater, from glaciers and ice sheets, and thermal expansion of seawater, as it warms.
Past and future sea level rise, at specific locations on land [relative sea level], may be more or less than the global average, due to local factors: ground settling, upstream flood control, erosion, regional ocean currents, and whether the land is still rebounding/subsiding from the compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers.

[Dave_S]

Debate homework for today.

All those who believe in MMGW are to prepare an opposition rebuttal and all those who do not believe are to prepare a statement for the affirmative team.

[AKA-None]

So now we’re denying that climate changes?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Although anti-Semitism plays no part in climate denial,

Considering that "denial" is most commonly associated with those that deny that the Holocaust ever happened, your comment is rather ironic, no? (putting it mildly). But even leaving aside the grossly negative connotations, how does all the horrific, primary, photographed, documented, and first-hand eyewitness accounts of the Holocaust possibly equate with the ambiguous "conclusions," e.g. all the "mights, maybes, possibilities, uncertainties" described in the studies from your OP? Unlike Einstein's commonly accepted and mostly settled theory of relativity, how exactly does one "deny" the CC theories you posted which, by their own admission, haven't achieved any such levels of scientific certainty? Or, and like so many, is it just based on your personal and/or political beliefs, just like it is for those who still run around ignoring the obvious evidence of the Holocaust? There's a serious credibility gap with the CC movement's use of such illogical and bogus analogies, and I would suggest this is what gives rise to much of the denialism questioning of it's legitimacy and motives.

“Jewish mathematics” served the same political function then , that the charge of “left-wing science” does in the climate debate today.
There's always a "conspiracy", to explain away the known facts, that don't suit us.

Surely you can do better than these sorts of far-fetched analogies. "Jewish mathematics" was used to discredit brilliant scientists on the basis of their race & ethnicity, and therefore had nothing to do with their actual scientific work. In stark contrast, "left-wing science" has an actual basis in fact, and reflects the distortions being inflicted on the public about how settled/certain CC science actually is. I think it may be fair to say that the majority of people who question CC science do so not on the basis of whether humans are altering the climate to some (undetermined) degree, but derive from well-founded concerns about the motivations, socio-economic agendas, and therefore the credibility of CC advocates. If saving the planet from CC was the predominant objective (as opposed to left-wing politics/policies), then refreshingly thoughtful (non-scientist) environmentalists like Michael Shellenberger would not be so vilified and rejected by those (like you I regret to say) who are so quick to dismiss contrarian or merely alternative points of view as "anti-science," or other commonly repeated slurs and falsehoods. Not unlike the responses to Covid, dealing with the potential adverse consequences of CC are hugely complex and require an open, thoughtful, well-informed balancing of the societal benefits and harms of various policies to achieve any sort of actionable consensus. As we've also seen with Covid, there's nothing more detrimental to such a process than political partisanship. It only serves to overly simplify, divide, and therefore defeat the consensus building process.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by AKA-None

So now we’re denying that climate changes?

Very little if any "denial" on that one. Not even much "skepticism."

The "MM" in "MMGW" = "man-made". This one's more controversial, but even the more contrarian climate scientists accept the existence of a human contribution.

How much "MM" is influencing warming temps and, more critically, what are the consequences is where most of the scientific (and non-scientific) controversy swirls.

What can or should we do about it is the big policy question, or at least it should be.

[SuW]

Girls, girls!
Don't you have some bottoms to scrape?

[Ita]

I don’t have the numbers, but I do remember what a big deal the Northwestern passage was, it took so many lives. And now is crossed by pleasure boats

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Ita

I don’t have the numbers, but I do remember what a big deal the Northwestern passage was, it took so many lives. And now is crossed by pleasure boats

In the past boats sailed over the top of Russia..
Unquestionably the most celebrated Russian explorer was Semyon Dezhnev, who, in 1648, sailed the entire length of present-day Russia along the Arctic coast. Rounding the Chukotsk Peninsula, Dezhnev passed through the Bering Sea and sailed into the Pacific Ocean .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by boatman61

In the past boats sailed over the top of Russia..
Unquestionably the most celebrated Russian explorer was Semyon Dezhnev, who, in 1648, sailed the entire length of present-day Russia along the Arctic coast. Rounding the Chukotsk Peninsula, Dezhnev passed through the Bering Sea and sailed into the Pacific Ocean .

Probably just the warmer "weather" that year.

[Elzaar]

I'm not wading far into this one, but why does everyone claim the experts all agree on something when they absolutely do not? "Science" is not some monolithic truth. Actual scientists work in a realm of hypothesis and theory - actual Law is extremely rare and often later proven false, (e.g. Newton's Law of Gravity is now accepted to be less than correct). I grew up with a scientist, surrounded by scientists - none of them believed they held the holy grail of knowledge. Einstein's Theory of Relativity hasn't only been questioned, but was questioned by Einstein himself.

Gord posted a paper that raised some issues for consideration. Folks who claim to care one way or the other might read it for what it is - Ideas to be further considered. I spend a fair bit of time on the NOAA NHC page. On it, you can find real experts (and data you can use yourself), discussing these same issues. You are likely to find many conditional statements in their opinions and conclusions, because that is what real scientists tend to do.

We all share the same interest in sailing. It might be helpful to keep in mind that Bernoulli's Principle, while seemingly very simple and obvious, is not so simple and obvious in how it actually works on the sail(s) and keel of our boats. The climate, storms, solar system, useful historical knowledge, and who knows how many other variables, are a good bit more unknown and much less understood.

So before we go casting our enemies into virus-filled rooms or lining up behind politicians (Team Captain) who almost certainly do not share our common interests; Who gain power and money by creating conflict; maybe it would be good if we just try listening to each other, respecting alternative opinions, and try to deal with what seems most perilous to all of us at the moment - that we seem to be all too ready to threaten and dehumanize people we disagree with - and that we seem to be surrounded by politicians, media outlets, and foreign governments who only seem to encourage that disagreement and conflict even as we are threatened by actual, observable harm.

[Hasbeen]

I have a fair bit of experience of cyclones. I have sailed through a couple, & sat out at least 10 in cyclone holes with up to 8 boats I was responsible for, along with their crews.


I have seen the resultant destruction to structures & to natural habitat. Thus I have a pretty fair idea of what vegetation looks like after different strength cyclones have passed through.


I am horrified to have to say that the current reported strength of cyclones is absolutely garbage. We see photos of areas after reported cat 4 & cat 5 have passed through, & the vegetation tells us the strength was at most mid range cat 3.



I hate to have top say we are being lied to by our weather authorities. We had a true cat 5 pass through the Whitsunday Islands of the great barrier reef a couple of years ago. Resorts are still destroyed, & not worth rebuilding. The vegetation told that story, as did the destruction of mans structures. Other earlier claims of Cat 4 & Cat 5 cyclones were total lies, with little destruction of buildings, & little damage to trees & other vegetation.


Global warming is a con job, & current cold winters will get colder & prove this fact, except for those who believe global warming gives colder winters.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Elzaar

I'm not wading far into this one, but why does everyone claim the experts all agree on something when they absolutely do not? "Science" is not some monolithic truth. Actual scientists work in a realm of hypothesis and theory - actual Law is extremely rare and often later proven false, (e.g. Newton's Law of Gravity is now accepted to be less than correct). I grew up with a scientist, surrounded by scientists - none of them believed they held the holy grail of knowledge. Einstein's Theory of Relativity hasn't only been questioned, but was questioned by Einstein himself.

Gord posted a paper that raised some issues for consideration. Folks who claim to care one way or the other might read it for what it is - Ideas to be further considered. I spend a fair bit of time on the NOAA NHC page. On it, you can find real experts (and data you can use yourself), discussing these same issues. You are likely to find many conditional statements in their opinions and conclusions, because that is what real scientists tend to do.

We all share the same interest in sailing. It might be helpful to keep in mind that Bernoulli's Principle, while seemingly very simple and obvious, is not so simple and obvious in how it actually works on the sail(s) and keel of our boats. The climate, storms, solar system, useful historical knowledge, and who knows how many other variables, are a good bit more unknown and much less understood.

So before we go casting our enemies into virus-filled rooms or lining up behind politicians (Team Captain) who almost certainly do not share our common interests; Who gain power and money by creating conflict; maybe it would be good if we just try listening to each other, respecting alternative opinions, and try to deal with what seems most perilous to all of us at the moment - that we seem to be all too ready to threaten and dehumanize people we disagree with - and that we seem to be surrounded by politicians, media outlets, and foreign governments who only seem to encourage that disagreement and conflict even as we are threatened by actual, observable harm.

Excellent post, and I agree with all of it, fwiw. Imho, the short answer to the (rhetorical) question you posed in your first sentence (bolded) is that it's the result of non-experts (and some experts) -- many with unquestionably sincere intentions & beliefs -- who have personal, political, or other agendas which compel them to believe there is scientific unanimity. And in fairness, there are some areas of science which, while maybe not absolute, do enjoy a seemingly overwhelming consensus. Examples from the medical world are the causal connections between smoking and cancer/heart disease, or obesity and a range of different ailments.

But this is exactly why CC advocates often try and analogize the "certainty" of CC to these other well-settled scientific areas, and in turn label anyone who questions it as "deniers" or "anti-science," or a whole host of other slurs in an effort to silence them. Of course, this doesn't mean we shouldn't necessarily forsake attempts to mitigate the potential human contribution to GW, but we should do it factoring in the uncertainties inherent in the science itself. Like Covid restrictions, most of us don't want the negative impacts of mitigation to outweigh potential harms, and don't want the "cure" to be more harmful to society than the underlying problem. But the simplified, highly politicized, divisive, and often unduly alarmist "either-or" level of dialogue can only serve to make it all the more likely we will get the required balancing wrong.