I must be psychic

A week ago I wrote

I predict that Avery will maintain that all the scientists are wrong about their own work and refuse to remove any names from the list.

And look what they wrote:

In response to the complaints, The Heartland Institute has changed the headlines that its PR department had chosen for some of the documents related to the lists, from “500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares” to “500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares.” …

We plan to make no further changes to the articles or to the lists. …

Many of the complaining scientists have crossed the line between scientific research and policy advocacy. They lend their credibility to politicians and advocacy groups who call for higher taxes and more government regulations to “save the world” from catastrophic warming … and not coincidentally, to fund more climate research. They are embarrassed — as they should be — to see their names in a list of scientists whose peer-reviewed published work suggests the modern warming might be due to a natural 1,500-year climate cycle.

Possibly because their work does not suggest that at all…

Hat tip: The International Journal of Inactivism.

Comments

  1. #1 Betula
    May 10, 2008

    Chris.

    Ah yes, the proverbial “The goal posts move yet again” routine.

    http://www.geocities.com/aaronbcaldwell/ptpoint.wav

  2. #2 sod
    May 10, 2008

    I was thinking more in the line of filling an Olympic sized swimming pool with many different colored marbles….. each color being equally represented. Now if you add 3 additional red marbles, the probability of blindly drawing a red one out of the pool has increased.

    now see, we are back to your lack in being smart again.

    i was obviously giving an EXAMPLE. i chose those numbers on PURPOSE. i was saying: EVEN the increase by 300% would NOT justify to call it the “cause” of the result of a single draw.

    the right way to speak about it is: the increase makes it more likely that a red ball… or the increase in red balls is the CAUSE of an increased number of red draws..

    your version doesn t make any sense at all. what would multiple colors mean, when we are discussing a binary situation? (storms caused by AGW or not..)

    a good guess for the number can be derived from a look at the sea temperature increase. it wasn t like adding 3 marbles to an enormous pool…

  3. #3 luminous beauty
    May 10, 2008

    Betula,

    If you have a point, it is at the tippy top of your tiny head.

    I can imagine your disappointment.

  4. #4 Betula
    May 10, 2008

    sod…

    I think we are talking semantics here.

    I know, as you stated, it’s impossible to prove a storm was caused by AGW…..that’s why I posed the question….because it can’t be proved. I was trying to make a point (see #103).

    You stated in #75 the following…..”warmer water has a strengthening effect on storms.” “this means an increase in storm number, strorm strength and “range” of storms”

    An increase in storm number and strength, due to warming water, which may be the result of AGW.

    So here we are….we can say there is a “probability” that storms will increase due to AGW, yet, when the storm hits, we can’t say for sure whether AGW was really the cause….so we say the storm was a possible consequence of AGW….or as Bernard said at #71…”evidence pointing to consequences that are a risk on the balance of probabilities.”

    It seems to me like all the bases are covered…..we can’t say it did, we can’t say it didn’t but we can say it probably might have.

    Isn’t that your red ball/AGW analogy? An increase in AGW, increases the probability that AGW is the cause, but not enough to justify it IS the cause?

    My analogy was more in line with using all the variables, all the natural forcings (different colored marbles) and increasing the C02 in the scenario (red marble) How much of the warming was actually caused by the additional C02? How much did the probability increase because of that C02? How much did the probability change by adding a few red marbles to millions of different colored marbles?

    I think it is irresponsible to say a cyclone like Nargis is a consequence associated with AGW……yet not have any way to prove it.

  5. #5 sod
    May 11, 2008

    Isn’t that your red ball/AGW analogy? An increase in AGW, increases the probability that AGW is the cause, but not enough to justify it IS the cause?

    ahm yes, but that is just a technical point. the REAL ISSUE is, that people do NOT say that AGW CAUSED this storm.

    instead they say:

    AGW increases the probability that this storms happen.

    so all you need to do still, is to find a SINGLE CREDIBLE SOURCE, that claimed that AGW CAUSED this storm.

    My analogy was more in line with using all the variables, all the natural forcings (different colored marbles) and increasing the C02 in the scenario (red marble) How much of the warming was actually caused by the additional C02? How much did the probability increase because of that C02? How much did the probability change by adding a few red marbles to millions of different colored marbles?

    this is total nonsense of course again. because CO2 is not relevant in this case.
    to check whether this storm was “caused” by man made global warming you would only look at man made increases of temperature (be it Co2, other gases or water vapor feedback) or non-man made increases.

    you mixed it all up with atmosphere composition, methinks..

    I think it is irresponsible to say a cyclone like Nargis is a consequence associated with AGW……yet not have any way to prove it.

    you still don t get it, do you?

    1. the statement “Nargis was caused by AGW” is (most likely) FALSE.

    2. the statement “AGW increases the probability that storms like Nargis happen” is TRUE.

    now all you need is someone who even makes that claim number 1!

  6. #6 Ian Gould
    May 11, 2008

    Look at it this way – bad weather increases the probability that traffic accidents will occur.

    But you can’t point to every single accident that occurred during bad weather and say “the weather caused this”.

  7. #7 Chris O'Neill
    May 11, 2008

    Betula,

    Re-read post #98……I said something like this…

    Just say:

    I disagree with what the Heartland Institute is doing

    without all the dissembling verbiage beforehand.

    The point is, it’s too late for you to avoid being dissembling on this thread because you’ve already done it. The advice was for future reference.

  8. #8 Chris O'Neill
    May 11, 2008

    Betula:

    Ah yes, the proverbial “The goal posts move yet again” routine.

    “Moving goalposts” refers to trolls such as yourself misunderstanding a point for a long time and then when they finally get some understanding of it they bring up yet another misunderstanding.

  9. #9 Betula
    May 11, 2008

    sod and Ian…..

    Your points are made and understood.

    There is still something about the way it’s presented that bothers me….by presented I think i’m talking mostly about the main stream.

    The thing that comes to mind is an interview I remember a few years back with Chris Wallace and Howard Dean (since this is a site about science and politics)

    They were discussing 911 and Dean stated the most interesting theory he had heard was that Bush was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. He then went on to say it was just a theory and couldn’t be proved.

    Wallace asked him why he would bring that up if it was just a theory? Dean went on to say he didn’t believe it, but it would be nice to know.

    The real reason Dean was saying this is because he knows that by throwing it out there, even though it’s a theory, it will eventually be taken as fact by many people.

    Anyway, in a recent interview, Al Gore, while dicussing Nargis, stated…”we’re seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming.” He then, to his credit, went on to say….”any individual storm can’t be linked singularly to global warming”

    So he’s sort of hinting (like Dean)…. that it’s possible, but the saying (like Dean) it can’t be proven.

    Is this then eventually taken as fact by many people?

  10. #10 Betula
    May 11, 2008

    Chris.

    Thanks for the definition of “Moving goalposts”….it must have been a misunderstanding.

    Other than that,do you have anything to say other than to comment on how it is you would like me to say something?

    Perhaps you should type my resonponses for me, that way, I can read what I said and think about what your next reply might be to yourself.

  11. #11 Tim Lambert
    May 11, 2008

    Err, Betula, that’s not exactly what happened in the interview with Gore — [the audio was doctored](http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/05/09/right-wing-gore-cyclone/).

  12. #12 luminous beauty
    May 11, 2008

    Betula,

    You are parroting right-wing lies

    That makes you credulous, gullible, malinformed. And stupid.

    And by the by, the Bush Administration was warned before 9/11. In the famous words of Condi Rice, “nothing actionable.”

  13. #13 dhogaza
    May 11, 2008

    Among other things, Betula conflates the common english meaning of “theory” with the scientific use of the word, which as nearly everyone here knows is far different.

    So, Betula, do you?

    bad weather increases the probability that traffic accidents will occur.

    Since we can often assign a specific cause to a traffic accident, I think perhaps the tobacco analogy is better (especially since paid tobacco-health denialists have frequently morphed into paid climate science denialism).

    So, Betula, we know that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. However, there are multiple causes of lung cancer, so at this point we can’t, with 100% confidence, point to a lung cancer victim and say “aha! she’s a smoker! that caused her cancer”.

    In your world, though, our inability to definitely assign a cause in all cases of lung cancer “proves” that scientific theory regarding how cigarette smoking causes cancer must be wrong.

  14. #14 Betula
    May 11, 2008

    Tim.

    I just read your link. That’s pretty incredible and rather sad if it’s true, and right now I don’t have any reason to believe it isn’t.

    To me, it raises many questions….who doctored the tape? Is there an undoctored audio available somewhere? Why, when I do a google search, is this site “The Wonk Room”, the only one reporting this? I checked NPR’s site and didn’t see anything on it……does anybody have more information.

    What I find more annoying is the guy on Fox twisting the words while talking to Dr. Gray. I realize many on this site probably don’t like him, but I went to CSU and he is well respected.

    Anyway, I already had dinner, so perhaps I’ll have crow for breakfast.

  15. #15 Betula
    May 11, 2008

    LB.

    If it makes you feel better….you are my favorite.

    Here you call someone…”credulous, gullible, malinformed. And stupid.”..because they dare to get their news from more than one source.

    I happen to be an Independent who is fairly disgusted, as are most Americans, with both sides.

    If you think the “right wing” are the only ones distorting information, then you are choosing to get all your information from one side.

    The truth is, it takes some digging to find the truth, and even then there is plenty of room for doubt…….but because I doubt, I am a denialist twit.

    This is my issue with the far left…they seem very intolerant…..where would I ever get that idea?

    And by the way, you should take the “Bush was warned” issue up with Howard Dean…..after bringing it up, he said doesn’t believe it….DENIER!

  16. #16 Betula
    May 11, 2008

    dhogaza.

    “In your world, though, our inability to definitely assign a cause in all cases of lung cancer “proves” that scientific theory regarding how cigarette smoking causes cancer must be wrong.”

    So you think in my world…

    Our inability to definitely assign a cause in all cases of storms “proves” that scientific theory regarding how AGW causes storms must be wrong.

    I thought AGW didn’t cause storms?

    Damn! I was just starting to come around, now you got me all confused again.

  17. #17 luminous beauty
    May 11, 2008

    Betula,

    Lessee.

    You hear a contrived story from right-wing sources and you eat it up with a spoon. No doubt. No skepticism at all.

    But multiple cross corroborated scientific evidence you doubt. No informed reason given. You just doubt.

    Independent? That’s what all the ditto-heads say. Adrift in loonyland.

  18. #18 Tim Lambert
    May 11, 2008

    Betula, the original audio is available from NPR. You can check for yourself that they rearranged Gore’s words. The person responsible is likely to be Jeff Poor. I doubt that BMI will discipline him for this, since he’s just doing his job.

  19. #19 Ian Gould
    May 12, 2008

    “Here you call someone…”credulous, gullible, malinformed. And stupid.”..because they dare to get their news from more than one source.”

    Actually in this case, you accepted the news from one highly suspect source – the Drudge Report.

    I’m also interested how you know other posters here only get their news from one source.

    I watch Fox News every day, literally.

  20. #20 sod
    May 12, 2008

    Anyway, in a recent interview, Al Gore, while dicussing Nargis, stated…”we’re seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming.” He then, to his credit, went on to say….”any individual storm can’t be linked singularly to global warming”
    So he’s sort of hinting (like Dean)…. that it’s possible, but the saying (like Dean) it can’t be proven.

    what he said is 100% correct. he does NOT say that it is possible but that it can t be proven.

    instead he says that current storms show the AGW effect and that a single storm can t be linked to AGW this far.

    he is just telling the TRUTH, not trying to maim it, like you!

  21. #21 Betula
    May 12, 2008

    Ian..

    “Actually in this case, you accepted the news from one highly suspect source – the Drudge Report.”

    First of all, I didn’t get it from Drudge, secondly, at the time of writing, I did not know of any other source disputing it….I have never visited “Wonk Room”.

    “I’m also interested how you know other posters here only get their news from one source.”

    I never said anything like that……now your acting like Doocy on Fox news, or perhaps your doctoring what I said….

    My original transcipt reads….

    “If you think the “right wing” are the only ones distorting information, then you are choosing to get all your information from one side.”

    You are reading what you want to hear.

  22. #22 Betula
    May 12, 2008

    Tim.

    Thanks. A straight forward response. And your civility is appreciated…..I feel like Chesty Puller at the Chosin Reservoir.

  23. #23 Ian Gould
    May 12, 2008

    If you didn’t get it directly from the Drudge Report you got it from a source which probably got it from the Drudge Report.

    Before I go posting ANY story on a blog I check the source.

    The mere fact that this came from Drudge should have made you skeptical and cautious given his track record.

  24. #24 Betula
    May 12, 2008

    LB.

    “But multiple cross corroborated scientific evidence you doubt. No informed reason given. You just doubt.”

    Do you even know what it is that I doubt?

    Please tell.

  25. #25 Betula
    May 12, 2008

    Ian…

    Before you go posting any story on a blog you check the source….excellent lesson there.

    But perhaps before you lecture people on a blog about what they know…. you should read what they said….excellent lesson there as well.

  26. #26 Lance
    May 12, 2008

    BPL,

    “I don’t know any such damned thing.”

    Then you are quite poorly informed about the literature on the subject. The “severe weather” claim you make is very much in dispute in the literature with even Emmanuel’s recent work leaning towards no increase in tropical storm strength (Pay attention sod). Likewise the drought claims.

    Without those two scare tactics what exactly is going to kill my “children and grandchildren”, sea level rise? Only if you plan to tie them down on a beach for fifty years.

    “Global warming is a big, serious problem, and if we don’t do anything about it a hell of a lot of people are going to die. That’s the fact, Jack. Deal with it.”

    Here’s a fact (Jack). India and China are now out producing the US in CO2 emissions. To achieve the reductions in CO2 that would be necessary to avoid a doubling by the end of the century (assuming that natural elements of the carbon cycle don’t compensate) would require an over all reduction of CO2 greater than 80% of current emissions.

    Just how do you propose to do that?

    “The equation the IPCC uses now (Myrhe (sic) et al. 1998) is 5.35 ln (C / Co), which yields 3.7 W/m^2.”

    Also perhaps you can show me a first principles derivation of your extra 3.7 W/m^2 “equation”. Myhre et al. 1998 merely adjusts the previously conjured number down due to aerosols in a failed attempt to bring it more in line with observations.

  27. #27 luminous beauty
    May 12, 2008

    Betula,

    As far as I can tell from your vague and inconsistent rambling, you haven’t a clue as to what constitutes rational doubt. You seem to think that the bounded uncertainty in extrapolating future climate somehow justifies an irrational belief that AGW cannot possibly cause any significant problems for the human race. Uncertainty cuts both ways. It could just as likely be far worse than the scientifically conservative projections of the IPCC.

  28. #28 sod
    May 12, 2008

    Then you are quite poorly informed about the literature on the subject. The “severe weather” claim you make is very much in dispute in the literature with even Emmanuel’s recent work leaning towards no increase in tropical storm strength (Pay attention sod). Likewise the drought claims.

    nice one. pay attention lance.

    now i ve been waiting for the Emanuel paper to show up for quite a while.
    Betula obviously is talking, without having some basic knowledge on the subject. (beyond having heard that Al Gore once said something…)
    you of course are equally uninformed. (read some news about in on a cheap right wing blog?)

    if you had taken a SINGLE look at the paper, you would have noticed the ABSTRACT:

    A new technique for deriving hurricane climatologies from global data, applied to climate
    models, indicates that global warming should reduce the global frequency of hurricanes,
    though their intensity may increase in some locations.

    ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/hurr_risk.pdf

    the paper makes some interesting reading.

    but in short, the lance post above is a rather typical example of denialist nonsense.
    misquoting a SINGLE scientific source witghout reading it. (based on some despised models, that he would never accept if he wouldn t like the results)

    a part about china does it. we can t stop it anyway. (admitting a CO2 effect), just to be followed by a part questioning the CO2 forcing.

    a model in denialism!

  29. #29 Betula
    May 12, 2008

    Bulb.

    “You seem to think that the bounded uncertainty in extrapolating future climate somehow justifies an irrational belief that AGW cannot possibly cause any significant problems for the human race.”

    Umm…..No.

    I have never stated AGW cannot possibly cause any significant problems……anything can happen.

    My doubt is the with the tone of urgency in conjunction with worst case scenario predictions that could lead to rash decision making policies and result in unintended consequences.

    In addition, phrases like “the debate is over”, “flat earther” and “holocaust denier” create doubt in my mind about the objectivity of the matter.

    I also tend to doubt people that use ad hominem attacks as a way to communicate with someone who doesn’t agree with them……

    Let me see, so far you have personally have called me a fool, a strawman, stupid squared, pathetic, I smell, I have a pointy head, I’m credulous, gullible, malinformed, stupid again, a ditto head and I’m in looneyland.

    Don’t get me wrong, I like your style, it tells me a lot about you…..only, I don’t think your going to win anybody over.

    For you the debate isn’t over….it never started.

  30. #30 dhogaza
    May 12, 2008

    The “severe weather” claim you make is very much in dispute in the literature with even Emmanuel’s recent work leaning towards no increase in tropical storm strength

    You forgot to say “in the atlantic”, because the modeling work also shows an increase in the pacific, which matches the analysis of observed storms in the pacific which he’s published in the past.

    At least if it’s the same paper I skimmed a month or so ago.

    Is there any particular reason why Lance quotes the part of Emmauel’s work which supports his “global warming is bullshit” position, while ignoring the rest?

    Can anyone here think of a reason as to why Lance would do that?

  31. #31 Lance
    May 12, 2008

    sod,

    Emmanuel’s comments that “…intensity may increase in some areas…” were just weakly stated cover for the fact that this “study”, using of course climate models that were trying to prognosticate the tropical storm activity of the next two centuries, shows little or no reason to worry.

    Here is a quote from the Houston Chronicle

    “While his results don’t rule out the possibility that global warming has contributed to the recent increase in activity in the Atlantic, they suggest that other factors — possibly in addition to global warming — are likely to have been substantial contributors to the observed increase in activity,” his coauthor Vecchi said.

    In the new paper, Emanuel and his co-authors project activity nearly two centuries hence, finding an overall drop in the number of hurricanes around the world, while the intensity of storms in some regions does rise.

    For example, with Atlantic hurricanes, two of the seven model simulations Emanuel ran suggested that the overall intensity of storms would decline. Five models suggested a modest increase.

    “The take-home message is that we’ve got a lot of work to do,” Emanuel said. “There’s still a lot of uncertainty in this problem. The bulk of the evidence is that hurricane power will go up, but in some places it will go down.”

    Emmanuel was on the more and stronger hurricane side of the debate and now he has backed off the more and is equivocating on the stronger claim.

    My use of the word “leaning” was perhaps poorly chosen since he has changed direction but is still leaning towards the likelihood of slightly stronger storms if less of them.

    The important thing to take from his remarks is the part about “a great deal of uncertainty”, thus substantiating my claim that there is no empirically compelling evidence to claim that our “children and grandchildren” face “death” from climate change based on BPL’s appeal to the threat from stronger storms.

  32. #32 luminous beauty
    May 12, 2008

    Betula,

    So you just want people to be nice to you when you say stupid things? You’re turned off by my insults? Get over it. If you don’t like being called stupid, quit being stupid.

    I’m encouraged to learn you don’t doubt the reality of AGW and it’s possible catastrophic effects. You could have saved a lot of trouble by just saying so, instead of insulting everyone’s intelligence by making vague assertions and off-hand dismissals.

    If your real concern is policy implementation, give us an idea of what kind of solutions you think will work. Don’t just whine about your straw man mis-perceptions of the ideas of others.

    Straw man arguments are a form of logical fallacy. I didn’t call you a straw man. I called you on your phony arguments.

    Nonethelees, you do bear a striking resemblance to Ray Bolger’s character in “The Wizard of Oz”.

    If you only had a brain.

  33. #33 sod
    May 12, 2008

    Emmanuel’s comments that “…intensity may increase in some areas…” were just weakly stated cover for the fact that this “study”, using of course climate models that were trying to prognosticate the tropical storm activity of the next two centuries, shows little or no reason to worry.

    i quoted the TWO LINE ABSTRACT of the paper. it contains the MOST IMPORTANT results.

    before making any wild claims about the paper, why not for a start *shock* READ it?

    Here is a quote from the Houston Chronicle

    lance showing off, how typical a denialist he really is. i quote the apper, he quotes a newspaper report ABOUT the paper.

    My use of the word “leaning” was perhaps poorly chosen since he has changed direction but is still leaning towards the likelihood of slightly stronger storms if less of them.

    NO! the problem was NOT with the word leaning. you claimed he predicts “no increase in tropical storm strength (Pay attention sod)” when in deed he predicts AN increase in tropical storm strength! (pay attention lance!!!)

    again, reading a paper BEFOREmaking claims about it, is sound advice…

    The important thing to take from his remarks is the part about “a great deal of uncertainty”, thus substantiating my claim that there is no empirically compelling evidence to claim that our “children and grandchildren” face “death” from climate change based on BPL’s appeal to the threat from stronger storms.

    now if you, with your profound knowledge on tropical storms assure us, that a 60% increase in storm strength will not harm anyone, i will rest comfortable tonight.

  34. #34 Lance
    May 12, 2008

    Now, now sod, I said I used a poor choice of words and conceded that Emmanuel’s work points to the possibility that “some” areas “may” see increases and some may see decreases in intensity. The point of my previous remarks, that there is not yet credible evidence to link AGW with increased storm strength, is not damaged by this concession.

    I used The Houston Chronicle piece because it quotes Emmanuel and his coauthor Vecchi directly on their study.

    Perhaps you can site evidence for your remark about a “60% increase in storm intensity”.

  35. #35 sod
    May 12, 2008

    Now, now sod, I said I used a poor choice of words and conceded that Emmanuel’s work points to the possibility that “some” areas “may” see increases and some may see decreases in intensity.

    you did not chose your words poorly. you were flat out WRONG!

    The point of my previous remarks, that there is not yet credible evidence to link AGW with increased storm strength, is not damaged by this concession.

    the complete opposit of this is the truth, of course. the vast majority of scientific literature DOES make that link.

    there are a few papers that somewhat caution on it.

    I used The Houston Chronicle piece because it quotes Emmanuel and his coauthor Vecchi directly on their study.

    this is getting BIZARRE!
    Vecchi is NOT the coauthor of the Emanuel paper.

    the paper you are talking about is Vecchi/Soden.

    actually the Emanuel paper is the REBUTTAL of their paper.

    ps: if you had read the paper even as far as the coauthory, you wouldn t constantly get his name wrong either(Emanuel)!

    Perhaps you can site evidence for your remark about a “60% increase in storm intensity”.

    you re simply adamant in your denial to read the paper, aren t you?

    here again the title:
    HURRICANES AND GLOBAL
    WARMING
    Results from Downscaling IPCC AR4 Simulations
    BY KERRY EMANUEL, RAGOTH SUNDARARAJAN, AND JOHN WILLIAMS

  36. #36 Lance
    May 12, 2008

    “Vecchi is NOT the coauthor of the Emanuel paper.”

    Oops you are right. His paper was of course a different paper in Nature.

    I was tripped up by this sentence in the article “That paper’s co-author, Gabriel Vecchi….”

    Which of course referred to Vecchi, G.A. and B.J. Soden. 2007. Effect of remote sea surface temperature change on tropical cyclone potential intensity. Nature, 450, 1066-1071.

    That study showed that although SST’s had increased over the latter part of the 20th century that PI in most tropical storm basins had not. It also made the point that vertical wind shear that is theorized to increase with higher SST’s could be expected to inhibit cyclogenic stormformation.

    If you had read the article to which I referred you would have seen that there was nothing “bizarre” about my mistake. That said it was a mistake and I thank you for pointing it out (if a bit rudely). The matter of my misspelling his name is just petty on your part.

    I am aware of the name of the article and have read its abstract and many descriptions of the contents, including the article from the Houston Chronicle that I referenced.

    Perhaps you can reference a site where I can read it without subscribing to the Bulletin of The AMS.

  37. #37 Ian Gould
    May 12, 2008

    There are at least three factors relevant to the impact of tropical cyclones – frequency, strength and duration.

    Even if the frequency and average strength of cyclones doesn’t increase, if cyclones last longer the risk that they’ll hit inhabited areas increases.

    The principal limit on the duration of cyclones is that as they move away from the equator, they hit colder water which stops the convection driving their winds.

    Warmer ocean temperatures imply longer duration cyclones and more damage even if the other two factors are unaffected.

  38. #38 Lance
    May 12, 2008

    Very creative Ian, if what you say is true we could expect that over the last century tropical cyclones would have been observed making landfall farther from the equator.

    The only problem is that there is no evidence that this has occurred.

  39. #39 sod
    May 12, 2008

    That study showed that although SST’s had increased over the latter part of the 20th century that PI in most tropical storm basins had not. It also made the point that vertical wind shear that is theorized to increase with higher SST’s could be expected to inhibit cyclogenic stormformation.

    whcih is quite the opposite of what the Emanuel paper says. let us see: you claim that the Emanual paper predicts no increase in strength, when actually it does the opposite. then you mix it up with another paper, that again says exactly the opposite of the Emanuel paper.

    pretty shocking record, isn t it?

    If you had read the article to which I referred you would have seen that there was nothing “bizarre” about my mistake. That said it was a mistake and I thank you for pointing it out (if a bit rudely).

    might sound funny, but i did of course read the article.

    even CA was slightly sceptical about it.

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2994

    Perhaps you can reference a site where I can read it without subscribing to the Bulletin of The AMS.ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/hurr_risk.pdf

  40. #40 Ian Gould
    May 13, 2008

    “The only problem is that there is no evidence that this has occurred.’

    Have you looked for any or are you simply speaking ex cathedra?

  41. #41 Barton Paul Levenson
    May 13, 2008

    Becoming increasingly irrational, Lance posts:

    Also perhaps you can show me a first principles derivation of your extra 3.7 W/m^2 “equation”. Myhre et al. 1998 merely adjusts the previously conjured number down due to aerosols in a failed attempt to bring it more in line with observations.

    Yeah, Lance, it wasn’t derived, it was “conjured.”

    Grow up.

  42. #42 Chris O'Neill
    May 13, 2008

    Betula:

    Which is the best approach to use in my response to you

    Just say:

    I disagree with what the Heartland Institute is doing

    without all the dissembling verbiage beforehand.

    Betula is having a lot of trouble understanding the point. Just to spell it out for it, saying

    Instead, they are teaching our kids that all the Polar Bears are dying because daddy, who is an arborist…cut down a tree

    does not necessarily mean:

    I disagree with what the Heartland Institute is doing

    Saying:

    Instead, they are teaching our kids that all the Polar Bears are dying because daddy, who is an arborist…cut down a tree

    leaves open the possibility that that you agree with the Heartland Institute’s tactics. Getting the statement:

    I disagree with what the Heartland Institute is doing

    was like getting blood out of a stone.

    BTW, I may have spoken too soon when I said:

    trolls such as yourself misunderstanding a point for a long time and then when they finally get some understanding of it..

    You still seemed to misunderstand the point about cyclone risk later on.

  43. #43 luminous beauty
    May 13, 2008

    Lance proves that human ignorance has no limit.

    Unsatisfied, he endeavors to expand the limit.

  44. #44 Lance
    May 13, 2008

    sod,

    Your link is to a two year old article not the one in this March’s Bulletin of the AMS.

    BPL,

    I used the word conjured for a specific reason. There is no derivation from first principles for what you refer to as an “equation”.

  45. #45 Lance
    May 13, 2008

    Ian,

    Hurricanes have sporadically hit as far north as New England over the last two centuries. Especially severe hurricanes (probably cat 4 or 5) hit in 1815 and 1938. There is no evidence, which I am aware of, that tropical storms have been progressing farther from the tropics.

    “Have you looked for any or are you simply speaking ex cathedra?”

    You are the one that made the claim therefore it is incumbent upon you not me to back it up.

    I suspect you are speaking ex posterium.

  46. #46 luminous beauty
    May 13, 2008
  47. #47 Lance
    May 13, 2008

    Thanks for trying LB, but for some reason the wordpress software (or whatever they use here) leaves out the underscores between Emanual, etal and 2008.

    I worked my way up the file path and found it.

    Thanks again.

  48. #48 Betula
    May 13, 2008

    Chris.

    Getting blood out of a stone?

    You first chimed in at #76…in my first response to you at #80 I said I disagree with Heartland….we are now in the 140′s.

    Without tearing apart every aspect of the rest your comment, mainly because I don’t feel like playing fetch anymore, I’ll just keep it simple…

    Obviously I struck a nerve.

    You really need to get over it or seek counseling.

  49. #49 sod
    May 13, 2008

    sod, …. Your link is to a two year old article not the one in this March’s Bulletin of the AMS.

    sorry, copy pasted the wrong link when i had both windows open. similar format. sorry. and available from the same source…

    the paper was available via link from the CA page (that i linked above) as well.

  50. #50 Chris O'Neill
    May 13, 2008

    Betula:

    You first chimed in at #76…in my first response to you at #80 I said I disagree with Heartland

    The point was, you went through the dissembling of saying:

    Instead, they are teaching our kids that all the Polar Bears are dying because daddy, who is an arborist…cut down a tree.

    and other dissembling and then my question before saying:

    I disagree with what the Heartland Institute is doing

    We are now in the 150′s.

    Obviously I struck a nerve.

    You really need to get over it or seek counseling.

    BTW, regarding: “Or is it because they are aware of the severity of the disgraceful actions of the Heartland Institute, and do not want to admit to being part of a movement that employs these tactics?”

    That pretty much sounds like you, does it not?

  51. #51 Betula
    May 14, 2008
  52. #52 Chris O'Neill
    May 15, 2008

    Betula:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com

    Quoting from sciencedaily.com. That pretty much sounds like Betula, does it not?

  53. #53 bi -- Intl. J. Inact.
    May 15, 2008

    Chris O’Neill:

    The point was, you went through the dissembling of saying: [...] and other dissembling and then my question before saying:

    I disagree with what the Heartland Institute is doing

    But… but Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too!

    If Clinton did it too, then it must be OK, or at least it’s not so bad, right?

    I mean… Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! The Left did it too! The greenies did it too! The warmists did it too! Yeah, I’m accusing them of doing something without proving that they did it. But that’s what the greenies do too! They did it too! They did it too!

    If they did it too, then it’s OK! They did it too! They did it too! They did it too!

  54. #54 Betula
    May 15, 2008

    Bi…

    Are you saying Luminous Beauty is really Hillary Clinton?

  55. #55 Chris O'Neill
    May 15, 2008

    Are you saying Luminous Beauty is really Hillary Clinton?

    That pretty much sounds like Betula, does it not?

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!