A new paper published in GRL gives a 1000-year perspective on Hurricane activity in Boston, USA. The paper is entitled: ‘A 1,000-year, annually-resolved record of hurricane activity from Boston, Massachusetts,’ by Besonen et al.
The Abstract states:
The annually-laminated (i.e., varved) sediment record from the Lower Mystic Lake (near Boston, MA), contains a series of anomalous graded beds deposited by strong flooding events that have affected the basin over the last millennium. From the historic portion of the record, 10 out of 11 of the most prominent graded beds correspond with years in which category 2–3 hurricanes are known to have struck the Boston area. Thus, we conclude that the graded beds represent deposition related to intense hurricane precipitation combined with wind-driven vegetation disturbance that exposes fresh, loose sediment. The hurricane signal shows strong, centennial-scale variations in frequency with a period of increased activity between the 12th–16th centuries, and decreased activity during the 11th and 17th–19th centuries. These frequency changes are consistent with other paleoclimate indicators from the tropical North Atlantic, in particular, sea surface temperature variations.
The paper concludes:
The LML sedimentary record provides a well-controlled and annually-resolved record of category 2–3 hurricane activity in the Boston area over the last millennium. The hurricane signal shows centennial-scale variations in frequency with a period of increased activity between the 12th–16th centuries, and decreased activity during the 11th and 17th–19th centuries. We recognize that the LML record is a single point source record representative for the greater Boston area, and hurricanes that passed a few hundred km to the east or west may not have produced the very heavy rainfall amounts and vegetation disturbance in the lake watershed necessary to produce a strong signal within the LML sediments. Nevertheless, we also note that clear evidence of a secular change in hurricane frequency identified in the LML record is consistent with other lines of evidence that conditions for the development of hurricanes have changed on centennial timescales. Hence, it appears that hurricane activity was more frequent in the first half of the last millennium when tropical Atlantic SSTs were warmer and eastern equatorial Pacific SSTs were cooler than in subsequent centuries.
Also, a NOAA climate realist speaks out:
Excerpt: “I did not say if there is global warming, it would be man-made,” Mr. Goldenberg emphasized. “Not all scientists agree that the warming we’ve seen is necessarily anthropogenic. It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” According to Stanley Goldenberg, meteorologist with the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, based in Miami, “Numerous hurricane meteorologists agree that the historical data has not produced any evidence of changes [due to climate change] in the number or intensity of hurricanes, particularly in the Atlantic Basin, and even globally. “There are some who have done studies that do claim a link, [but] virtually all those studies have been heavily rebutted by others in the hurricane community,” he noted. “In my opinion, the flaw in those studies is an improper utilization of historical databases. I have been a specialist in hurricane climate data for close to three decades, and others who know the databases well agree with what I am saying.” Mr. Goldenberg pointed to a number of confounding problems in such studies, including the time frame chosen, the techniques available now and in the past to measure hurricane activity, the ways in which such activity was recorded, and the availability of satellite data—or lack thereof. “The biggest fallacy is that people think that a hurricane feeds off a warm ocean, and if the ocean gets warmer, we will have more intense hurricanes,” he explained. “But there are other factors involved, such as vertical wind shear, which is the difference between the upper and lower layers of the atmosphere. You could also have drier air. These are far more critical factors than the ocean being warmer. “Everything else being equal, if you warm the ocean under a storm, you might get a stronger storm—but everything else is not equal,” said Mr. Goldenberg. “Warming may increase vertical shear and therefore inhibit storms. The ocean itself warming is such a little effect.” […] Mr. Goldenberg of NOAA added, “There are those who want to attribute any perceived increase in natural disasters to anthropomorphic global warming. I predict that if we have an active hurricane season, someone will attribute it to AGW. They’re not really looking at the science; they’re looking at the disaster.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Thank you Mr. Goldenberg.
Look here what, I found googling Lower Mystic Lake.
http://insidemedford.com/2008/02/19/bald-eagle-spotted-near-lower-mystic-lake/
Perfect!
Look at what the scientists are saying now about global warming and cyclones.
Global warming ‘induces fewer, but meaner, cyclones’
http://www.scidev.net/en/news/global-warming-induces-fewer-but-meaner-cyclones-.html
“In my opinion, the flaw in those studies is an improper utilization of historical databases. I have been a specialist in hurricane climate data for close to three decades, and others who know the databases well agree with what I am saying.”
Oh dear, another one of those ‘appeals to authority’. Naughty man. We’ll have to let loose some of our resident AGW warmer pit bulls onto him. That’ll teach him.
The Australian research by Crompton and McAneney makes the same conclusion: “Once the weather-related insured losses are normalised, they exhibit no obvious trend over time that might be attributed to other factors, including human-induced climate change”. Seems quite clear that idea of storm effects from increased CO2 is now completely refuted. The Garnaut report must be rewritten.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VP6-4S0HC75-1&_user=918210&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2008&_rdoc=2&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%236198%232008%23999889994%23691545%23FLA%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=6198&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=9&_acct=C000047944&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=918210&md5=c1b49ce10bce0378b7e5292d36b16dce
“We’ll have to let loose some of our resident AGW warmer pit bulls onto him.”
Steve,
Send him around to doltoid. They’ll show him the error of his ways.
He’s far too knowledgable, needs re-educating badly. [pun intended]
In the Coral Sea the supposed reason we weren’t getting cyclones was that it was not hot enough.
However it was supposedly hot enough to cause coral bleaching.
Why weren’t we getting coral bleaching back in the 60s when we were getting all the cyclones?
Its just so depressing that we have a bit of a trick of language here that stops people saying outright that this global warming business is science fraud.
And the trick is that, climate rationalist that I am, I would still believe a priori that extra CO2 would warm the atmosphere A TINY BIT. There is really no doubt that since the industrial revolution we would have actually cooled the planet from what it otherwise would have been. We would have cooled the planet A TINY BIT, because the air pollution would have been AT TINY BIT more important than the (at best guess CONTRARY) influence of the extra CO2 attributable to human behaviour.
I put the word CONTRARY in the brackets since one assumes that the extra CO2 is a tiny warmer rather than a tiny cooler. This is speculative. But what is not really speculative is the fact that pollution would have an effect of greater magnitude.
So many people, myself at one time included, are hesitant to call this out as science fraud, and science fraud that within the last century would probably have been actionable………. simply because of provisos of this sort.
We know that aerosols trump CO2 both through logic and through the empirical evidence associated with volcanic eruptions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
One of the worst offenders in this fraud is the guys who do the last edit of the material coming out from the CSIRO.
And thats what really got me started. Since it is a matter of both logic and climate history that the severity and frequency of hurricanes and other extreme weather events happen in the cold times and not the warm times. And it is a matter of logic that this will be even more the case in the hypothetical that the warmer times came about as a result of extra greenhouse as opposed to a burst of solar activity. Since the initial burst would increase the energy that needed to be distributed between the equator and the poles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Australians are very proud of the CSIRO and 99 in 100 of them would be loathe to see it trashed. But its proud history comes not from stolen-money financing, but from instead the awesome ingenuity of prior generations of Australians and the crusader-like attitude these guys had towards the scientific ethos.
Some say that no woman brought up on indoor plumbing is to be trusted, but I’m getting the feeling that this ethos mostly still exists in the scientists that grew up in the provinces and country towns.
“Marohasy was born Jennifer Joyce Turnour in Darwin in the Northern Territory of Australia in 1963. Her parents were farmers at Coomalie Creek near the uranium mine of Rum Jungle. They grew tomatoes and pasture seed, ran buffaloes and cattle and built their home from handmade mud bricks…..”
You have a theory. You go to the data and Eureka. I swear to you that I did not know this prior to finishing the last sentence of my own.
As a scientific experiment lets try Bob Carter:
Unfortunately the Wiki tells me nothing about Carters upbringing.
Lets try someone else who has that sort of MUMMIFIED scientific ethos. Lets try Arthur Robinson:
No background there. But I now realise I have made a mistake. You see pretty much all scientists over about 65 or so, supposing they weren’t communists or nazis, would have had this ethos, one would imagine.
But matters have gotten to such a low pass that it seems you have to go and find people who incinarated their own rubbish in a rusted 44 gallon drum as one of their childhood chores, or it would be the case that they don’t have the scientific ethos and can never get it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is true that my stay on any blog is a thing with short legs. I have been banned from more blogs than anyone else who uses his own name.
But while I’m here, and while Paul and the Doctor are too busy doing other things to put some sort of block on me, don’t be coming here with these stories about how people like me should behave and not use words like fraud, liar and so forth.
Don’t hang out at Deltoid, calling the Doctor a “shill” and then come here and expect me to do what you guys do and be oh so polite and say everything through a shit-eating grin.
I really hate you guys.
I look down on you people.
I worry for my country when I think of you because you are proof that the stupid have become upwardly-mobile.
One time or another I’ve signed up to fight and for pitiful and discrimatory reasons have been excluded, and thats a good thing because I would not fight for you parasites knowing what I know now.
It is NOT OK for you people to be slandering a female SCIENTIST (A real scientist and not just a grant-whore or field-worker) either outright or by implication, either here or at Deltoid. Its not Ok. Its not alritght. Because if it was me I’d either be angry or I wouldn’t give a toss.
But female psychology is such that a scientist, hypothetically speaking, of that gender, would not give a toss most of the time, but every so often this campaign of slander and abuse would really hurt.
So don’t come here, while I’m here however briefly, and run these poopy-pants leftist walkouts like Crawford just did.
You people make me sick. You make me want to be sick. You make me want to throw up. Specifically you make me want to throw up ON YOU.
You are all pathetic.
Forget everything you ever thought you knew.
But if you want to come here and engage in honest speculation, thats fine. Only remember I’m better AT IT than you will ever be.
“Global warming ‘induces fewer, but meaner, cyclones'”
Say what you mean!!! Do you mean global warming or do you mean industrial-CO2?
Its important to get this right. This is supposed to be science. So lets have some precision to your statements or otherwise get ye to a church.
And no thats all nonsense. Global warming (literally speaking) means fewer and less severe, extreme weather events.
So I go to their link. And its just a lie. Because this is not the real world. Its just something that these research-grant-whores have rigged up on the computer.
Uh huh. Gawd …
Be reasonable;
http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/the-explodian-litmus-test-the-application-of-human-reason/
Thats right rog. No matter how ridiculous the conclusion seems to be we have to follow the evidence as it is.
I’m waiting for someone to show me that the photos are some sort of rig-up. I expect this to happen anytime now. But until this rigup is exposed we have to follow the implications of the photos.
“Uh huh. Gawd …”
You put forward a powerful, penetrating and persuasive argument there Luke…………. (idiot).
Why are you such a moron Luke? You think a tone of voice argument is a valid thing?
This is the revenge of the nerds. You’d get beat up quick smart if you showed this attitude in any social situation right up to post-grad level. This is a steaming mummified hatred of all those who were more socially adept. Thats one of the drivers of this science fraud for sure.
Look at Brooks. Guys a shiny-head with a weird high-pitched voice. Look at Lambert. He’s a dwarf. I’ve never seen Luke but I don’t imagine he was the most physical guy in the room at high-school and undergraduate level. I think if we trace back these characters we will find several general themes going down here.
hmmmm – OK let’s check you out then
http://www.ldp.org.au/images/GraemeBird_web.jpg
mate it’s a major worry. ROTFL to the nth !
So the issue Birdbrain – is when are you going to get some help for pseudo-intellectual Tourettes syndrome? You’re supposed to be pursuing a line of discussion here not free associating on an LSD trip.
Good point. But why are you such an idiot who has got the science wrong. Forget about that picture. Thats not me. Thats some sleep-deprived idiot wearing a fat suit based on me.
But how could you have gotten the science so wrong and still be working for the RMIT. This is not difficult stuff. And you’ve blown it and got everything wrong. None of your learning was any good and you’ve tossed it in and accepted a comic-book narrative with an astonishing lack of sophistication.
How could this have happened Luke?
I suppose you clowns thought that you could say anything and that was OK because the planet is inscrutable. Actually the planet is pretty straight-forward. And climate science is easy work. But you tell me how you could have hashed things up so badly.
It’s you all right matey. Now look Dickybird – so we can’t help it if you did a few units of this and that and now you think you’re somebody. But you’re just a wannabe. You guys in the LDP – Looney Dickheads Party are never going to even sniff the cushions of the seats of power let alone sit in them. We can’t help if your miserable lives didn’t work out and you’re now reduced to working shiftwork. It’s not our fault.
Well smarty libertarian pants if climate science is easy work (your words) – make with the seasonal forecast for next summer. But let’s not wait – show us your cross validation hindcast stats for the last 100 years and we’ll see if you’re a wannabe loser shift-working pussy or hero.
Face it Birdy – you’re my bitch now.
Its easy work. But its not work that I do. You would need the resources for that sort of thing. Notice that its the climate rationalist that was making all that money taking bets on the weather. On Martin Durkheims documentary of the global warming hoax. No science fraudster has ever made money that way. If I wanted to make predictions like that I’d subscribe to Evelyn Gariss’ newsletter. People who actually do a good job of predicting these things NEVER take CO2 into account.
Notice that the irrational liar Luke now makes the test a 1 year weather forecast. Something that he would never expect the IPCC to be able to supply.
The IPCC are just shockingly useless. They put their error bars so wide and yet they are still going to be wrong. Just useless like that lying little bitch Luke.
No Bird you are being piss weak like I thought you were. Furthermore you’re pig ignorant and don’t even understand what I’m saying. You said climate science was easy did you not. YES OR NO – YOU SHONK.
BIRD SAID “And climate science is easy work.”
Well if it is a seasonal forecast would be snack for you. Pretty basic stuff. Don’t even worry about something challenging like climate change if you’re not up to this.
So where is it. And of course you would have already checked your forecast and have some hindcast statistics.
So don’t worry about anyone else now matey boy – this is about your credibility. You don’t need that many resources to have a go – a PC would be OK for a good attempt on a seasonal forecast.
You’ve done a runner you gutless twerp. Don’t worry about laying smoke and diversions. You’ve been called out on YOUR words and found out. You’re clueless – resign from the LDP immediately and apologise for wasting their time – you’re not a libertarian’s bootstrap.
I mean mate – really – I’m bored with you – you’re arguing like a girl – I want the real thing – put your wife on. Get out of my sight and off the blog.
Yes climate science is easy. Its not nearly as hard as economic science. Maths barrier aside. It was so easy I was able to ascertain that this global warming racket was baseless just looking at the problem over a few months. This is in a situation where people were loathe to answer questions. In economics people will willingly answer questions.
So yeah. Dead easy.
A seasonal forecast would require the sort of resources that bloke had who was making all the bets based on what he knew about the sun and the data he was getting. Its beyond what I could do. But that doesn’t mean that understanding the climate is not easy work. You are an idiot who does not seem to understand the difference between weather and climate.
The fundamental system is not all that complicated. The leftists non-comprehension of it all is what has lead them to try on this massive fraud. Since they thought the matter was inscrutable. They therefore thought they had a free hand in making up any lies they felt like.
All one has to do really is develop an understanding which would explain the snowball earth, the holocene optimum, the glacial periods and how they end, the global heat maximum.
Anyone following CO2 cannot do this. The Goddard institute cannot account for the snowball earth. They tried and failed.
The understanding of computer models that leftists have is so crude that one wouldn’t expect it coming from anyone but the most isolated tribal peoples or very small children.
The practice of the modellers is so unsound that they appear to want to tell themselves that they are modelling the behaviour of the earth directly. Rather what they should be doing is setting up dummy models to help them test hypotheses and get to where these models could replicate the snowball earth and the heat maximum.
I was looking at this matter for one or two months and something really stuck out like a sore thumb. This was that Stefan Boltzmanns law implied that the main determinant of the warmth of the earth would be to what degree the oceans would be able to circulate. If circulation was restricted as it is now we would expect a colder climate. If the continents were more open we would expect the climate to be warmer, with any given level of solar activity. The level of quality of the people in this business is so low that this had never been mentioned to me before. But it stood out from the fossil record as plane as day.
Therefore the key to stopping the new little ice age that bears down on us, from becoming a full-blown glacial period, is to pre-empt any interference with the gulf stream.
Now thats pretty easy work. It only took me a few months and it was dead easy. Probably it would have taken me less time if I had known about Stefan Boltzmanns law at the outset.
I’d probably write this a lot differently if I was doing it over. There is some talk of ice ages being also related to the solar systems rotation around the spiral arms of the galaxy. But more locally its going to be the ease of circulation which is the chief factor along with the suns output. Also its pretty clear that the heat maximum had nothing to do with methane or CO2.
http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=9246659&an=0&page=0&gonew=1
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH HAND WAVE HAND WAVE
Drop a few factoids. Lay smoke. Bulldust bulldust bulldust.
So Inigo Jones could have a go back in the day but bluffing bulldusting badmouthed Birdie can’t.
Get off the blog you clown !
Its true I would write it differently. I’d go back and see when ice ages developed even during that time.
But what is your point? More recent history shows very clearly that the resistance to circulation is the key consideration. A Heinrich event dumping ice on the Gulf Stream can send the climate backwards. And of course when that big meltwater lake broke and dumped down on the Gulf Stream it brought it to a halt for ten centuries sending us back into near ice age conditions for 1000 years.
You are an idiot Luke. You don’t have any evidence yet you support a fraud.
STOP HAND WAVING and laying smoke. We’re not talking about any of that shit.
You said climate science is easy. You are utterly piss weak. Simple task has been asked of you and you’re suffering St Vitus’s Dance. Stop diverting onto other subjects which is all you’re good at – moving on. No depth. No care. You’re reckless mate.
I’m going to follow you to the end of time on this.
There’s no hand-waving or blowing smoke. Its just the truth of the situation that nothing that fails to warm the ocean can be responsible for cumulative warming. This is utterly impossible. Since only the ocean can hold enough energy to outlast a single weak solar cycle.
More water vapour cannot lead to runaway warming. Lets just repeat that so no-one can make any mistake here:
MORE WATER VAPOUR CANNOT LEAD TO RUNAWAY WARMING.
This is simply not possible. Since the water vapour is produced in the very act of cooling the ocean. The water vapour is the ocean sweating. In the short-term the water vapour does indeed warm the troposphere through 1. Increased overturning 2. The transport of actual and potential heat energy. 3. The greenhouse effect (no matter how much it is disputed the actual magnitude of this effect.)
But it is also the transmission method by which the oceans cool themselves. If CO2 were to lead to more warming it would also lead to more water vapour. Which would cool the oceans. Leaving us the tiniest bit warmer in the net sense. Thats at a best guess. The other thing that would happen is that the ocean currents would have less driving force behind them due to less heat differential. So the net effect would be tiny. Even tinier than the .3% for a doubling that good climate rationalists have been calculating.
On the other hand if that CO2 could just melt the land ice a little bit each year it could well help us stave off the glacial period along with a mix of other measures. The net effect would only have to be a few metres each year and it would be very helpful.
So this is fraud. We know how the climate system works. Its no mystery. It doesn’t work like a flat black body with no insulative capacity of air, no convection, no conduction.
Up in Chiang Mai when the heat soars after noon (since this place is elevated) they bring out the garden hose and rapidly cool the whole area via evaporation. Water vapour is proof of massive refrigeration. On the road to San Kam Piang my step-daughters grandfather built a restaurant on the side of the road. Its largely an outdoor affair with netting and they pipe water up to the roof and allow it to run down this netting. The netting lets fresh air through. But it holds the water up long enough to allow it to evaporate. Its netting which is mostly just space but tiny little squares.
Its just astonishing the power of this crude method as an air conditioner. You walk in from punishing high-altitude heat that would burn your feet immediately without shoes. And even before you get inside the air is incredibly cool and comfortable. This powerful effect happening though the evaporation is going on way overhead.
Every inch of the tropical oceans are going through this refrigeration every minute of the afternoon. Thats what is creating the water vapour which determines the heat of the troposphere. The troposphere therefore cannot get hot without massively increasing this refrigeration effect. Only thick ice can prevent this effect on the oceans. This is often missed when the focus is all on Albedo. But away from global warming controversy everyone knows that ice on the lakes can actually stop the cooling of the main body of the lakes water.
So there is no chance of runaway warming. None at all. Not from all the methane we allow to leak out or be produced from our farm animals. Not from a doubling of CO2 output, a tripling or a quadrupling. None at all. The CO2 levels would have to be so high as to actually have a massive effect on air pressure. Than it could have a cumulative effect and not before.
The only way we could get runaway warming would be to make the ocean currents as close to frictionless as we could. And dig huge ocean trenches like gigantic Suez canals to reduce the resistance to circulation. We couldn’t dig anything that deep. We might be able to give it some effect by producing an artifically smooth bottom. Than we might have to wait millions of years for the excess joules to build up deeper in the earth and only then would we be likely to get a release of energy which could cause a big problem.
We know that this sort of thing was the cause of the warming 55 million years ago simply because the ocean currents started coming off the bottom of the sea. Which implicates heat buildup deeper below.
This is not unprecedented elsewhere in the solar system. With Venus storing up enough heat so as to finally subduct its entire surface when it got so much heat energy that it couldn’t hold it any more.
Venus lacks a moon and has a very slow rotation. So it lacks the perturbation in its various strata, both in the atmosphere and beneath the ground, to be able to release its internal energy more frequently and less catastrophically. But we ourselves most definitely had a heat buidup in the tens of millions of years prior to the heat maximum. With tens of millions of years without an ice age and with continents so open as to allow for general warming everywhere. Thus making it difficult for the earth to release excess heat to the deep oceans.
There is simply no chance NO CHANCE of serious warming. More is the pity. But there is just no chance. This is wrong-way Corrigan on a global scale. How could we have been so stupid to worry about warming when the globe is so fundamentally rigged up with a one-way bias to catastrophic cooling alone?
booooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiigggg
spare us your juvenile diversionary twaddle
You said climate is easy – so answer the question dorkus.
I challenge anyone to falsify any of the above in my last post. Its a definitive statement against the utter lack of any possibility of problematic cumulative warming.
Luke.When it comes to science, you are as useless as tits on a bull. Falsify what I’ve written and prove me wrong.
Bird – all just rubbish kindergarten waffle. Don’t drivel on. Answer the original question.
Unless of course you’d like to admit climate science is HARD stuff and you’re really clueless.
Was your words matey boy – so put up.
Lets have that falsification idiot. And lets have the verification of your own position idiot.
No no no – you SAID “climate science is easy” Either put up or get off the blog. You really are piss weak Bird – and you look pretty stupid too. No wonder you didn’t even get close to being elected. So spare us the diversionary twaddle – substantiate your stated position or bend over and retract it.
Climate science IS easy. I think I made that point. I came up with a formulation above that is totally outside of your ability to falsify.
So I’ve proved that climate science is easy. You just have to make sure that your formulation is consistent with basic science and the historical record.
So yes I’ll repeat. Climate science is easy. I’ve proved this. And what I see George Reisman doing in economics for example is just 100 times harder.
Making near-term weather predictions is pretty hard though. But there are people out there who are pretty good at doing it.
Since the solar cycle peak appears to be late there will be a good chance of further cooling. Thats about all I’m in the position to say about next summer. But that doesn’t mean that understanding the climate system isn’t pretty easy.
But still you are such a moron you are confusing weather with climate.
Another thing we could say is that if the solar cycle peak is delayed we would expect greater than average rain on the east coast. On the ABC science show this week there is a fellow that can predict rainfall for the West Australians on the basis of temperature in the Indian Ocean, which leads to one type of wind or the other. Which decides whether its Africa or West Australia who gets a bunch of rain. This is pretty simple stuff when all is said and done.
But its not a part-time thing. However understanding the broader climate system is not hard work. So long as you don’t go in for mindless lying and so long as you are trying to have an understanding of it that plausibly accounts for the historical record than you ought to be able to come to a pretty good understanding of how the climate works.
When Goddard had to choose between the evidence of the snowball earth and their computer model they chose fantasy over reality. So if you go down that path you would never wind up understanding the situation.
Answer the question gimp and stop with the kindergarten drivel. We’re talking a simple seasonal forecast not weather – are you that thick – you don’t even know do you?
You’ve again said it’s simple stuff. Now make with the answer or GET OFF THE BLOG and live your life in shame.
You idiot Luke. Climate science is easy. But this is not related to your weather forecast test. If you hadn’t noticed the climate scientists aren’t all weather forecasters. The weather forecasters aren’t all climate scientists. And I’m not a weather forecaster with the time, resources or experience to make a forecast.
So your test in no way relates to the thesis. Its just more proof of your idiocy.
Now I cannot make a serious weather forecast. Although I already did say one or two basic things. But if you want a weather forecast ask Tim Bailey. I in fact did say one or two things about it which you ignored. You are incapable of making the slightest valid inductive inference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’ll say something else which proves the basic, understandeable and straightforward nature of the climate.
The season after hurricane Katrina Evelyn Gariss told all her subscribers that this too would be a big hurricane season. But then there was a volcanic eruption, and she reversed her prediction claiming that the volcanic aerosols would soak up the moisture in the air or some such thing. And so there wouldn’t be any hurricanes and she was right.
So its straightforward stuff. I’ll say it again. CLIMATE SCIENCE IS EASY. That it is easy is independent of the fact that I’m not a weather forexaster. I could be a weather forecaster and it would be easy. Or I could be in the condition that I’m not a weather forecaster and climate science would still be an easy subject.
But the fact is that people are able to make a lot of very good predictions. I mentioned already that fellow who could predict Western Australian rainfall on the basis of heat patterns in the Indian Ocean. I mentioned already that fellow on Martin Durkeims masterpiece who could make money on weather bets based on a solar forecast. Evelyn Garriss and her father before her makes a living on a newsletter to investors that gives investment advice based on a general forecast going many months ahead.
So you are just being an idiot and it really shows your lack of understanding of the situation. Your test made no sense one way or the other to the thesis we were testing. Climate science is easy.
A seasonal climate forecast isn’t a weather forecast you fool. You really are just some little trumped up Dobell hicky boy aren’t you. Camping out in Dobell.
Spare us the juvenile kindergarten drivel and nonsense and put up !
P.S. You are so ignorant that you don’t even know it’s Durkin. Talk about useless.
Climate scoemce is easy. If you disagree stop spamming and come up with a better test. I’ve proved that climate science is easy. You haven’t come up with any counter-evidence. I’ve shown that such forecasts can be made. I pointed out people who make these forecasts successfully. So I proved you wrong.
You said it was simple. You have failed to step up to the plate on the simplest test. I going to report you to the LDP executive for being ratshit.
No you are lying. I made a prediction. Your test
Climate science is dead easy. I proved it. Your test had nothing to do with the thesis. But I made a couple of predictions anyway.
So you are just an idiot mate. You may as well have said “well why can’t you fly a helicoptor?”
Climate science is easy. And I proved it. You were too stupid to come up with a test that would even falsify the notion. Though I’m not a forecaster these forecasts are possible and are being made all the time.
This is why you can never be a scientist Luke. You cannot so much as invent a test to falsify or verify an hypothesis. Climate science is easy.
Nope – you said climate science is easy. It’s not – very hard on physics and maths – very demanding. Reality – you’re a flake. You failed to step up to the plate. Frankly I’m disappointed – thought you would have had a try. Not even trying makes you even worse than I thought you were.
Climate science is easy. Find a test that actually FALSIFIES that proposition you idiot.
Logic is easy as well. Just not for an idiot like yourself. Now stop spamming and thread-wrecking and recognise your inherent stupidity and pathological dishonesty.
Well answer the question then flake.
I’ve given you the answer you moron. The answer is that a weather forecast from someone who isn’t a forecaster is NOT A TEST TO THE THESIS.
Climate science is easy. This I have shown. Since you were not able to falsify anything I said above. Since people working in the business are able to make good predictions if they aren’t science fraudsters.
The problem is with you. The problem is that you are a moron. Someone totally incapable of developing a counter-argument to the idea that climate science is easy.
So have you got it yet you moron. I have put forward the assertion that climate science is easy. I have given a great many arguments for this assertion. You have no counterargument for that assertion.
Do you understand that yet you idiot? Little bit beyond your pay grade you moron?
Are you in fact the stupidest person on the internet? I think you are. Now where is that evidence?
So you come here, you go over to Barry Brooks site. You go and see what Karoly has to say. You see taxeaters Luke, Gavin and international frauds like Steve Bloom getting about the place. You look at that malignant dwarf and DDT holocaust denier Lambert.
This fraud cannot be beaten except by mass-sackings. It doesn’t matter how frigid the weather will get. And it will indeed get very cold. They won’t be shaken out until they are punished for their lying, fraud and incompetence. They will find a way of rewriting history if they are not punished. Science fraud used to be a crime. People would be punished for it. We must revive this. Its not OK to be a science fraud like these people.
Only mass-sackings can do the job. They will still be committing this fraud no matter how cold the weather gets. Only massive cuts to government spending can reverse this thing.
Yes – but back to the question.
I made a lot of predictions. Now we are not getting back to the question. Since the question doesn’t relate to the thesis. People who do this for a living can indeed make good predictions of the type you asked for. But weather prediction and climate science are not the same thing.
Climate science is easy. If you want to test that assumption you have to come up with a meaningful test for oit.
Look if you are too stupid to understand that, and you are, just don’t bother Luke.
“I made a lot of predictions” OK – well show us the hindcast stats then and we can evaluate.
Stop spamming Luke. Concentrate on finding a way to dispute what I actually said. Climate science is easy. At least compared to what the best of the economists have been able to acheive.
Now try and dispute that statement. Or rather find someone smarter than yourself to dispute it.
Now we know that experienced people can do very good forecasts. I’ve pointed these people out. Were I in the business no doubt I could learn to do the same. Eveylyn Garriss learned her trade partly from her father. The bloke who made all the money on Martin Durkeims masterpiece got his experience from relating solar activity to the subsequent weather.
This is not inherently difficult stuff at all if you are not a fraudster like yourself. If you are into science fraud you can spend 50 billion and not make any progress.
So still we have to conclude that climate science is easy. Its predictable physical stuff. It doesn’t thave the wild card of human behaviour. Furthermore we have millions of years of geological data to make sure that our thinking is consistent with.
Too easy.
We just have to keep on going over it again until that dim bulb Luke gets it.
We have just enormous data in the geological record that we can use to fashion our understanding of the climate. If our understanding of the climate is pretty much right than none of these examples of geological evidence will stand out in contradiction of the understanding we have fashioned.
Now its pretty clear that the Goddard institutes understanding is not in accordance with the geological record. They felt they needed to try and hide the medieval optimum. They have tried to downplay the holocene optimum ludicrously claiming it was probably cooler in winter during that time. They are in denial of the snowball earth. They cannot rightly explain the many glacial periods…. and so forth.
There has been an ice age where the CO2 levels were 16 times as high as they are now. Goddard deals with that by just saying it never happened.
So you are trying to think of an implicit model or understanding that can account for all of this evidence.. No use adding exact numbers and computer modelling until you have that basic understanding. And hopefully there will be other people who have different views of it that also doesn’t contradict the data.
Now apart from that we are really just talking about basic ideas to do with strata-and-heat budgets. In other words we are talking very simple physical processes. Of heat transport, buildup, absorption, conduction, overturning, and so forth. Just thermal energy. Easy.
It just couldn’t get simpler were it a sober field of study.
The difficultly only begins with the lying. By its nature this is a dead easy field of study. Perverted by leftist lunatics.
This is why in the laity we might not see too strong a left-right-split. But in the actual business all the main believers are hard-leftist lunatics. Lovelock alone excepted.
“Other scientists found conflicting evidence. In 1992, a team from the University of New Mexico reported that ancient soils showed extremely high levels of carbon dioxide 440 million years ago, an age of primitive sea life before the advent of land plants and animals. The carbon dioxide levels were roughly 16 times higher than today. Surprisingly, the scientists said, this appeared to coincide with wide glaciation, an analysis, wrote Crayton J. Yapp and Harald Poths in the journal Nature, that “suggests that the climate models require modification.”
CARBON DIOXIDE LEVELS 16 TIMES WHAT THEY ARE TODAY AND ICE AGE CONDITIONS PREVAILED.
So thats the end of this argument. The leftist crowds incredibly crude understanding of matters based on some model they dug up for political purposes are wrong. And yet both sides are still following this dumb model. Dead from the neck up. A failed paradigm. Now it used to be “back to the drawing board” but not with this crowd.
Had this science fraud politicisation not broken out we would be years ahead of where we are now. Since this is actually a very easy subject by its nature.
All of that contains no information whatsoever. All filler.
“I made a lot of predictions” OK – well show us the hindcast stats then and we can evaluate.
No no. The proposition is this: Climate science is easy.
And it is. Because its just basic science applied to explaining the massive geological record.
“the carbon dioxide levels were roughly 16 times higher than today.”
Obviously any Arrenhius based model that cannot account for the conditions 440 million years ago cannot be thought of as scientific. Same goes for the heat maximum and the rest of the data.
There is just so much data. There is no excuse for having an understanding of climate in contradiction to any of it. This makes the subject incredibly easy by its nature. One just forms ones hypotheses on the basis of the evidence.
Well if it’s “easy” and you know so much you’ll have done a simple seasonal climate forecast. NOT a weather report. Now I reckon you’re a lying little fatso cissy – so put up or GET OFF THE BLOG.
I don’t want to hear all the repetitious stupid nonsense you’ve read off Weetbix blogs – forget about AGW for a while – I want your science mate. But if you are just a friggin wannabe idiot say so and we can walk away.
If I thought that seasonal weather forecasting was suitable for a part-time unfunded one man gig THATS WHAT I WOULD HAVE SAID YOU MORON.
I didn’t say that. I said that climate science was by its nature easy. I never claimed that it was a one-man-gig. Its a civilisational gig. But the work is straightforward.
In economics the good stuff comes through the British classical school and through Menger, Boehm Bawerk, Mises, Hutt, Rothbard, Reisman and others. Its harder than climate science. But its not a one-man-gig.
And climate science is actually reliant on far more people than economics.
Now stop being an idiot. And if you disagree with me find some evidence-or-argument that falsifies what I’m saying or verifies something contrary to what I’m saying.
You might have been trained to think that science was about maths, statistics and field-work and thats all important stuff. But human reason is the essence of science. And the others things are tools that are useless or even destructive in the wrong hands.
You can use hammers, saws, drills, screwdrivers and dingo diggers to make a house. But you need human reason behind these tools. Without that reason you’ve got a vandal. The tools are worse than useless. You have someone sawing down the tree to your treehut. Or you have the Texas chainsaw massacre.
No a single person can do it. What’s wrong with you pussy pants. Lordy you’re so piss weak. What a dweeb. You’re a clueless unelectable moron — GET OFF THIS BLOG. Useless handwaver that you are.
Graeme; Why do you even bother with this clown Luke he reminds me of Polly parrot he keeps repeating the same piece of inane stupidity over and over again, it reminds of the way children behave in a kindergarten schoolyard. I think it is becoming pretty obvious by now that the Kyoto accord which runs out in 2012 will never be resigned because to get the first one off the ground India and China were given a free ride Russia was allowed to use 1990 as their CO2 target which means they have $60 Billion of carbon credits to sell, these were the bribes handed out to get the first agreement signed, they will not be repeated so the next agreement is a no go. In addition in another 3 years the cooling trend will be well established so all the politicians who back this farce will be so disgraced that neither they nor their parties will have a hope in hell of getting back into power. I think the news media will be so busy pointing the finger at others to distract people from their own complicity in this swindle they will turn on the IPCC like the snakes they are ( Jen and a few others excepted)
Excellent – a moron who supports Birdy – well we found one finally.
He’s an idiot Barry. But I’m not letting him get the last word in.
It would be appropriate if someone came in and just erased nine-tenths of the two-way communication between the both of us. But the fact is the leftist obsession with getting the last word in is powerfully malignant in its effectiveness. So much so that its driving this entire science fraud.
I won.
Just an observation for you Global Warming kooks:
How can we accept as true these theoretical weather scientists about something that has purportedly caused a lot of studying over millions of man hours, if these same scientists can’t even agree on where a storm is going in real time?
The Earth has been around reasonably a long time, and will persist to subsist even well after us as a species are extinct. The earth goes through changes, just as women do, who’s to say that the same thing didn’t take place a million years ago? No one can. In the grand scheme of things a people as a whole are just specks on the big ass of Earth – so stop being so supercilious – you’re a bunch of Gores!