Changes in Tropical Cyclone Intensity & Track

[44'cruisingcat]

One test of scientific theories is their ability to predict outcomes. Relativity, quantum mechanics etc..

Unfortunately the climate predictions have been remarkable only in their inaccuracy.

[silkie]

Originally Posted by BelizeRumRunner

It is only a theory that temperature correlations with coral depletion. Hard to agree with when there are corals thriving in areas where water temperatures are increasing. Another theory is that nutrients the coral need are becoming more scarce because fish populations are diminishing. Coral loves fish poop. The bottom line is that there are so many interconnected pieces of the great planet puzzle that mere humans can only guess at how they fit together. God put animals, minerals, plants and fish together and gave man the power to rule it all. Seeking his guidance is a good start.

It's all God's will. We can stop thinking now. No reason to do anything, as anything we do must have been ordained. Save the peadophiles, for the love of God. They only do what He asks of them.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

One test of scientific theories is their ability to predict outcomes. Relativity, quantum mechanics etc..
Unfortunately the climate predictions have been remarkable only in their inaccuracy.

Were it true, which it's not, wouldn't that be a good thing?

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

You've described coral bleaching. This has been occurring long before climate change became a thing. More a weather related phenomenon than hard evidence of climate change.

Pretty sure what I wrote said the coral bleaching and reef destruction was not due to a lack of fish poop, as proposed by the previous poster. It was due to ocean warming, specifically the 2015-16 heating event in the Indian Ocean.
Can't say whether that heating event was a weather phenomeon or climate change. I can say that the hundreds of square miles of reef are dead. Not something you would expect from normal weather patterns,

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Pretty sure what I wrote said the coral bleaching and reef destruction was not due to a lack of fish poop, as proposed by the previous poster. It was due to ocean warming, specifically the 2015-16 heating event in the Indian Ocean.

Can't say whether that heating event was a weather phenomeon or climate change. I can say that the hundreds of square miles of reef are dead. Not something you would expect from normal weather patterns,

Perhaps one needs to first establish what "normal weather patterns" are.

For example, should it be the patterns that created the heat and drought of the 1930s; or the patterns that caused the floods of the 1960s; or the patterns that caused the cyclones of the 1970s? Or do we simply stick with the patterns of cold from the 1850s?

[OutOfControl]

Maybe a little comedy is needed, sort of like all of the politics in the joke thread.

https://youtu.be/qJUFTm6cJXM

[boatman61]

Okay..

[OutOfControl]

Originally Posted by GordMay

However, here’s a few leaders, prominent in the field of climate science:
Wallace S. Broecker
James E. Hansen
Syukuro Manabe
Michael E. Mann
John Francis Brake Mitchell
Veerabhadran Ramanathan
Susan Solomon
Tom M.L. Wigley
[John R. Christy, Judith A. Curry, Richard S. Lindzen]

GordMay,
Since you referred to Michael E. Mann as a prominent leader in the field of climate science, I thought you would enjoy this.

https://youtu.be/fAlMomLvu_4

[donradcliffe]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Pretty sure what I wrote said the coral bleaching and reef destruction was not due to a lack of fish poop, as proposed by the previous poster. It was due to ocean warming, specifically the 2015-16 heating event in the Indian Ocean.
Can't say whether that heating event was a weather phenomeon or climate change. I can say that the hundreds of square miles of reef are dead. Not something you would expect from normal weather patterns,

That's funny, I was in the Maldives in 2004, and the reef was dead then. They said it was due to bleaching. Must have been a miraculous recovery.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Perhaps one needs to first establish what "normal weather patterns" are.
For example, should it be the patterns that created the heat and drought of the 1930s; or the patterns that caused the floods of the 1960s; or the patterns that caused the cyclones of the 1970s? Or do we simply stick with the patterns of cold from the 1850s?

Weather is the state of the atmosphere, at any given time and place. Most of the weather that affects people, agriculture, and ecosystems, takes place in the lower layer of the atmosphere.
Climate is the long-term average of the weather in a given place. While the weather can change in minutes or hours, a change in climate is something that develops over longer periods, of decades to centuries. Climate is defined not only by average temperature and precipitation; but also by the type, frequency, duration, and intensity of weather events, such as heat waves, cold spells, storms, floods, and droughts.

So, for example, the eastern United States experienced a cold and snowy winter in 2014/2015, but this short-term regional weather phenomenon does not negate the long-term rise in national and global temperatures, sea level, or other climate indicators.

It may be helpful to think about the difference between weather and climate with an analogy:
weather influences what clothes you wear on a given day,
while the climate, where you live, influences the entire wardrobe you buy.

Scientists traditionally define a Climate Normal as an average over a recent 30-year period.

The most recent installment covers the period from 1981 to 2010.
Why 30 years?
Close to a century ago, the International Meteorological Organization [now known as the World Metrological Organization, or WMO] instructed member nations to calculate Climate Normals, using 30-year periods, beginning with 1901–1930. The WMO also recommends a decadal update, in part to incorporate newer weather stations.
Also, a general rule in statistics says that, you need at least 30 numbers to get a reliable estimate of their mean or average.
So, scientists have traditionally defined Normals as averages over 30 years, simply because that is the accepted convention; not because a 30-year average is the only logical or “right” way to define a Climate Normal.

Climate Normals were not designed to be metrics of climate change.

In fact, when the widespread practice of computing Climate Normals commenced in the 1930s, the generally accepted notion of the climate was that, underlying long-term averages of climate time series were constant. Changes from one installment of Climate Normals to the next do, nonetheless, provide some evidence of climate change impacts. However, care must be taken when interpreting changes between one Climate Normals period and the other.
Rather than inferring Climate Change impacts from Climate Normals, NOAA’s NCDC/NCEI recommend users instead look at trends in U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) time series.

“1981-2010 U.S. Climate Normals”
➥ https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-acces...0-normals-data

“U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN)”
➥ https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-acces...-network-ushcn

“NOAA's 1981–2010 U.S. Climate Normals: An Overview” ~ by Anthony Arguez et al
➥ https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/jo...11-00197.1.xml

“NOAA’s 1981-2010 Climate Normals Methodology of Temperature-related Normals” ~ by Anthony Arguez et al
➥ https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/...ethodology.pdf

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by OutOfControl

GordMay,
Since you referred to Michael E. Mann as a prominent leader in the field of climate science, I thought you would enjoy this.
https://youtu.be/fAlMomLvu_4

Musically, I did enjoy M4GW’s “Hide the Decline” parody [back in the day, I did like Tommy James], although it’s complete scientific rubbish, and factually cringe worthy.

I also thought that defamation Mann's lawsuit, against Minnesotans 4 Global Warming, was dumb.

[OldManMirage]

Originally Posted by nortonscove

People seem to trust science that works for them. They will get on a plane without questioning the science but refuse to believe it if it isn't something they don't want to hear. The bias regarding science is usually in the person receiving the results and not the scientists.

Not wanting to start a fight but...lol...remember that the leading scientists of the day back then also didn't think that manned flight would ever be viable.

I am also one who believes that "some" of what we are seeing today is simply the result of better technology/forecasting. I have been an amatuer astronomer for all my life, and as our abilities to study astrophysics have grown, so have our theories.

And I also remind myself often that the leading scientists of Columbus' day advised that the world was flat.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Weather is the state of the atmosphere, at any given time and place. Most of the weather that affects people, agriculture, and ecosystems, takes place in the lower layer of the atmosphere.
Climate is the long-term average of the weather in a given place. While the weather can change in minutes or hours, a change in climate is something that develops over longer periods, of decades to centuries. Climate is defined not only by average temperature and precipitation; but also by the type, frequency, duration, and intensity of weather events, such as heat waves, cold spells, storms, floods, and droughts.

So, for example, the eastern United States experienced a cold and snowy winter in 2014/2015, but this short-term regional weather phenomenon does not negate the long-term rise in national and global temperatures, sea level, or other climate indicators.

It may be helpful to think about the difference between weather and climate with an analogy:
weather influences what clothes you wear on a given day,
while the climate, where you live, influences the entire wardrobe you buy.

Scientists traditionally define a Climate Normal as an average over a recent 30-year period.

The most recent installment covers the period from 1981 to 2010.
Why 30 years?
Close to a century ago, the International Meteorological Organization [now known as the World Metrological Organization, or WMO] instructed member nations to calculate Climate Normals, using 30-year periods, beginning with 1901–1930. The WMO also recommends a decadal update, in part to incorporate newer weather stations.
Also, a general rule in statistics says that, you need at least 30 numbers to get a reliable estimate of their mean or average.
So, scientists have traditionally defined Normals as averages over 30 years, simply because that is the accepted convention; not because a 30-year average is the only logical or “right” way to define a Climate Normal.

Climate Normals were not designed to be metrics of climate change.

In fact, when the widespread practice of computing Climate Normals commenced in the 1930s, the generally accepted notion of the climate was that, underlying long-term averages of climate time series were constant. Changes from one installment of Climate Normals to the next do, nonetheless, provide some evidence of climate change impacts. However, care must be taken when interpreting changes between one Climate Normals period and the other.
Rather than inferring Climate Change impacts from Climate Normals, NOAA’s NCDC/NCEI recommend users instead look at trends in U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) time series.

“1981-2010 U.S. Climate Normals”
➥ https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-acces...0-normals-data

“U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN)”
➥ https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-acces...-network-ushcn

“NOAA's 1981–2010 U.S. Climate Normals: An Overview” ~ by Anthony Arguez et al
➥ https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/jo...11-00197.1.xml

“NOAA’s 1981-2010 Climate Normals Methodology of Temperature-related Normals” ~ by Anthony Arguez et al
➥ https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/...ethodology.pdf

Metaphorically, I guess it could be said that the weather is to climate as the tail is to the dog. The question becomes is it the dog wagging the tail or the tail wagging the dog?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by OldManMirage

... And I also remind myself often that the leading scientists of Columbus' day advised that the world was flat.

As a lifelong amateur astronomer, you should know better.

There is virtually no historical evidence to support the myth of a medieval belief, in a flat earth. Scientists, and Christian clerics, neither suppressed the truth, nor stifled debate on this subject. They "knew" the earth was spherical.

Scholars, in antiquity, developed a very clear spherical model of the earth, and the heavens.

Every major Greek geographical thinker; including Aristotle (384–322 bce), Aristarchus of Samos (310–230 bce), Eratosthenes (273–ca.192 bce), and Claudius Ptolemy (ca. 90–ca.168), based his geographical and astronomical work on the theory that the earth was a sphere.
Likewise, all of the major Roman commentators; including Pliny the Elder (23–79), Pomponius Mela (first century), and Macrobius (fourth century), agreed that the earth must be round.
Among the early church fathers, Augustine (354–430), Jerome (d. 420), and Ambrose (d. 420) all agreed that the earth was a sphere.
From the seventh to the fourteenth century, every important medieval thinker, concerned about the natural world, stated more or less explicitly that the world was a globe, and many of them incorporated Ptolemy’s astronomy and Aristotle’s physics into their work.

Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), for example, followed Aristotle’s proof in demonstrating that the changing positions of the constellations as one moved about on the earth’s surface indicated the spherical shape of the earth.

Roger Bacon (ca. 1214/ 1220–ca. 1294), in his Opus Maius (ca. 1270), stated that the world was round, that the southern antipodes were inhabited, and that the sun’s passage along the line of the ecliptic affected the climates of different parts of the world.

Albertus Magnus (d. 1280) agreed with Bacon’s findings, while Michael Scot (1175–1234) “compared the earth, surrounded by water, to the yolk of an egg and the spheres of the universe to the layers of an onion.”
Perhaps the most influential geographers were Jean de Sacrobosco (1195–1256), whose De Sphera (ca. 1230) demonstrated that the earth was a globe.

So, which leading scientist[s], of Columbus' day, advised that the world was flat?

[sailorboy1]

In Breaking News

Boat insurance companies have revised their coverage areas due to the hurricane forecast science. From now on boats are required to be north of Long Island USA and south of Rio de Janeiro Brazil during the hurricane season of May 1 and April 29