Top 10 Global Warming Lies That May Shock You

Sadly the forecast strength, and the actual were off by like 4 sigmas... But oh well, they tried, right? Good thing.

 

He forgets, often, that his hero and AGW acolyte Mikey Mann was the original cooler dude..... Before he was the author of that hockey stick graph.. And before he was outed by the East Anglia folks for his shoddy work... The music of the times even reflects the fear of the predicted cold... So soon they want everyone else to forget.

 

Sure. It's a fabrication. Anybody with a decent statistical package can construct an "index" that shows what they want it to show. I'm at the point where I'm not going to trust any massaged data. I'm looking at the satellite photos of arctic sea ice, and it has been growing for six years.

That's a bald falsehood.

Many cold records were set last winter, and it snowed in places it hadn't snowed in decades or even centuries. Where I live, the last two winters were the coldest on record, and the summer just ended was one of the coolest. Ask anyone in their nineties who remembers the thirties and forties. It was warmer then.

No it hasn't.

Garbage. Temperature led CO2, and the total change in CO2 from Ice Age to interglacial was a fraction of the increase over the last 100 years, yet we have seen only a tiny fraction of the warming typical of a deglaciation. That means the "CO2 drives temperature" narrative CANNOT be true. Temperature has driven CO2, not the other way around.

 

He's not my hero. I actually don't like him. And by the way, the people claiming his work was shoddy are either non-expert bloggers or their critiques were shoddy.

 

Delusional.

Easterbrook, Soon, Baliunas, D'Aleo? Should I go on? Should I throw up that Easterbrook graph showing his prediction?

CO2 both lagged and lead temperature changes in the past. It is true that 90% of the time it lagged. The reason is because in the past CO2 was not the catalyzer for the change. Sometime else initiated a change in the temperature which then kick started the feedback where CO2 forced the temperature higher leading to yet more CO2 release leading to yet more temperature increases until the cycle became self limiting. This is well researched behavior. We also know without a shadow of a doubt that CO2 does force temperature changes. The evidence spans 150+ years and is massively abundant. Refer to the HITRAN database for details on the exact mechanism and photon frequencies that activate CO2's molecular vibrations.

 

It is sad. We should do better.

I get the feeling your solution is to punish the NHC with reduced funding?

For the record...my solution is to spend more money on atmospheric science research so that the United States doesn't have to be some 2nd rate chump that needs the Europeans to tell us when severe weather events (like Sandy) are going to hit the United States. But that's just me.

 

Patrick Moore is not a Greenpeace founder. He lies about that. What does that say about his credibility?

Moreover, he's been a paid shill for polluters for the past 25 years.

And he has zero experience in climate science.

And yet you fell for such propaganda. Your whole side embraces his big lies. What does that say about you and your side?

 

Bzzzzt! Gore Rule invoked.

The Gore Rule says that any time anyone on any side invokes Al Gore, they forfeit the entire discussion for their own side.

Why? Those who can talk about the science and actual issues, do. Those who can only parrot political conspiracy theories, they rave about Al Gore.

Needless to say, you never see the rational people here saying "But our hero Al Gore said this, so it must be true!". Gore is a politician, and we care nothing about him. All the science, data, logic and history back up our position, so we talk about that. That's one reason why it's so good to be on the rational team. To "win", we merely have to point to the real world.

Thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you, including the Climate Science Home Game and a year's supply of Bounty, the Quicker Picker Upper.

 

You just made that up.

Go on, back it up. We'll wait. Explain to us how going from cat 3 to cat 1 is 4 sigmas. Show the math. If you didn't fake it, that should be no problem for you.

 

LOL who made the Gore rule? He's your boy, you own him. I guess his movie and all it's crazy predictions was kind of embarassing to the cult though not to mention the fact he beats up hookers in his spare time. I'd run from him to if I was you. Now I'd like my climate fake science home game and my years supply of Bounty please.

 

Even sadder was this " monster hurricane" turned into little more than a monster tropical storm.

 

Nah... I was thinking more like rotten tomatoes, rotten cabbage, in the stocks center of town.... I think if you really don't know, you should just keep your yap shut, and tell folks what the facts are, not your oiji board guesses....

 

I'm not sure what you mean. All "monster hurricanes" must go through the less intense tropical storm stage as part of it's lifecycle. I'm guessing what you meant to say is that it is sad that forecasted landfall windspeed of 140 mph was off by quite a margin. And I absolutely agree with you on that.

Did you know...we aren't the world's leaders in weather forecasting anymore? We aren't even 2nd or 3rd best. And it's said that even the Chinese are going to overtake us soon. How sad is that?

That's why instead of calling atmospheric science a fraud and a hoax we should be advocating for more research so that forecasts can become more skillful faster and so that we don't have to rely on other countries to predict weather disasters in the United States.

 

That is a moronic post.

You don't even know what I was commenting on - which was the reason the AGW proponents lost the argument from the start.

Before making utterly idiotic comments, learn what the conversation is about.

I'm creating a new rule, its called the mamooth rule, any post from or attributed to or linking mamooth is automatically deemed idiotic and can be ignored.

 

The so called experts predicted or at at minimum inferred a monster hurricane was going to make landfall and by the time it did hit land it was barely a hurricane any more. There was also the AGW pushing prediction it would make landfall further north than any hurricane in history. That too was yet another failed prediction by the pushers of AGW.

 

The NHC never predicted that it would landfall further north than any hurricane in history. As I pointed the NHC was off by less than 5 miles in the track forecast.

https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2018/FLORENCE.shtml?

I do concede that the NHC botched the maximum wind forecast. That's pretty common actually because intensity forecasts in general aren't very skillful. However, they were pretty close on the pressure forecast. It's just that the hurricane was much larger than forecasted so the law of conservation of angular momentum meant that instead of the winds moving fast they had to spread out not unlike how a figure skater slows down when she spreads her arms out even though her total kinetic energy didn't change. Florence had the 3rd lowest barometric pressure for a landfalling category 1 hurricane and had a total kinetic energy of 60 TJ making it 3x more powerful than Hurricane Andrew. That's why this is still going to be a multi billion dollar disaster. Just food for thought...

My point is that instead of bitching about atmospheric scientists and making unsubstantiated claims of fraud, hoax, and conspiracy maybe we should advocate for them so that our intensity forecasts can improve as much as our track forecasts have. I also find it embarrassing that the public's distaste for atmospheric science and belief that it's a fraud has actually resulted in the United States going from #1 in the world in forecasting to barely being #4. And even that position is now in jeopardy. So while we're busy thinking of new and creative ways of calling it all a sham the rest of the world is moving forward in their atmospheric science advancements to the point where we now rely on them to make our forecasts for us. I find that incredibly embarrassing. What do you think about it? Should we embrace science like we once did and strive to be #1 again or should we continue to call it all a fraud and fall further down the ladder?

 

I can't stop laughing!

 

So where were all the news reports coming from stating this hurricane would hit farther north than any hurricane in history coming from? Just more fake news?
As per your question we should embrace science and reject politics disguised as science.

By the way you are wrong on NHC accuracy.
"Hurricane Florence could make history on Thursday night if it becomes the first one ever confirmed to make landfall that far north at Category 4 strength, which forecast models are suggesting is quite possible."


"The latest forecast from the National Hurricane Center projects that Florence will reach the southern or central coast of North Carolina while at or close to Category 4 strength on Thursday evening. The track could still veer south or north of the midpoint location.


The NHC’s “cone of uncertainty” two days before landfall is about 175 miles wide, based on forecasts over the past five years. Hurricanes track outside the edge of the cone about a third of the time.
https://weather.com/safety/hurricane/news/2018-09-11-hurricane-florence-landfall-category-4

 

We talk about science. In response, you rage about whoever your cult has told you to demonize. Your cult has convinced you all that you're special snowflakes who know way more than those durn liberal egghead scientists. And you believed. After all, if you weren't a sucker for such emotional manipulation, you could have resisted the cult snow job. Thus, you all have no idea of how far out of your league you are.

And that's why I have to step in with these interventions.

Not being consumed by narcissism myself, I understand that if the greatest experts in the world say I'm wrong, the most likely explanation is that I'm wrong, as opposed to the explanation being how a vast secret global conspiracy is directed at me.

 

How did I get it wrong? Remember, I said the NHC was off by a lot on the intensity (about 50 mph) but was really close on the track (about 5 miles) based on a 120 hour forecast. Do you dispute these two forecasts?

Yes. I know the cone is the 1σ confidence interval based on the errors from the previous 5 years. The hurricane still made landfall within 5 miles of the prediction which makes that a far more accurate forecast than most other hurricane tracks. Remember, that 5 mile error was relative to the 120 hour forecast. The 1σ window is much bigger at 120 hours than at 48 hours.

Anyway, back to my point. Why is the NHC so good at predicting cyclone tracks but so poor at predicting cyclone wind speeds? And why is the United States so bad a predicting weather in general relative to the rest of the world? Do you agree that it's at least partly because our politicians are convinced that science a fraud and a hoax whereas the rest of the world embraces scientific achievements?

 

mammoth rule invoked

 

In 48 hours it's pretty obvious to anyone where the hurricane will hit. I wouldn't credit the NHC much for that. I am curious though why you believe other countries forcast are so much better than ours. Who are these Supermen? What countries are they in?

 

UKMET, ECMWF, and DWD-ICON all have global numerical weather prediction models that make better forecasts than the United States on a consistent basis. To be fair we are at least beating the Canadians. Anyway, it's no surprise either. Those groups have large budgets. For example, ECMWF spends about $100 million year on atmospheric science research. After the Superstorm Sandy debacle in which politicians were made aware of the large deficiency and our reliance of foreigners for our weather forecasting the US congress authorized a one time $50 million grant as part of the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 to improve US weather forecasting. It's money well spent and the fruits of it's labor will come next year (after 7 years) when the FV3 model goes operational. It's definitely an improvement. The problem...in that time the ECMWF group has spent $500 million on improving their forecasting. Not only have we not caught up with the rest of the word in those 7 years, but we've actually just fallen further behind and have been outspent by at least 10x on research. Why? Because even in the wake of a $100 billion disaster our politicians are apathetic towards atmospheric science research. Based on surveys of our politicians it's partially because they think atmospheric science research is a big hoax.

By the way, did you know that Superstorm Sandy was even "weaker" than Florence in terms of maximum sustained winds? The problem was that it's integrated kinetic energy was closer to 150 TJ making it 7x more powerful than Hurricane Andrew. That's why it did so much damage. It was a large hurricane with an expansive wind field. Remember, the law of conservation of angular momentum says that the more spread out the energy the slower the wind speeds. If that 150 TJ of energy were to be confined into a typically sized hurricane the maximum winds would have been over 200 mph!

 

Interesting. I always thought NASA is supposed to be top of the heap when it came to all things climate or weather. Also interesting that according to what you say we lost ground in this area all through the Obama years.

 

NASA doesn't do weather forecasting as far as I know. That's NOAA's job. NASA does do climate forecasting though.

Yes, we lost ground during the Obama years. In fact, the Obama administration cut funding to NOAA.

Trump has said on multiple occasions that he wants the United States to be leaders again in weather forecasting. Give credit where credit is due. I just hope Trumps rhetoric on climate change hasn't further tainted congress' apathy to the atmospheric sciences.