If it weren't for the Republicans, there would be no typhoons!!

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

If it weren't for the Republicans, there would be no typhoons!!

Typhoon Haiyan is the worst ever. It is consistent with projections of greater tropical rainstorms in Southeast Asia and the Philippine and Indonesian archipelagos in the event of global warming. I saw images of the damage, and the damage resembled that of the Great Tsunami.

If it's a tradeoff between people in the American Midwest getting blizzards and Filipinos, Indonesians, and Vietnamese getting killed in the myriads -- let us have the blizzards. Don't like Michigan blizzards? Then do what many Michiganders do in the winter -- go to Arizona, Texas, or Florida for the winter.

Eric has it right. Don't vote for people who deny climate science.

Don't mix climate and weather. Individual events, even extreme ones, are not directly attributable to long-term changes in climate, except in so far as some models predict that certain events will become more frequent. Make the case on its own merits, without falling into sloppy rhetoric or weird little asides about blizzards in the Midwest.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Don't mix climate and weather. Individual events, even extreme ones, are not directly attributable to long-term changes in climate, except in so far as some models predict that certain events will become more frequent. Make the case on its own merits, without falling into sloppy rhetoric or weird little asides about blizzards in the Midwest.

I read a good analogy today. If you throw two dice, sometimes you get two sixes. Global warming increases the chances of getting two sixes. However, for each individual throw, you don't know if you got two sixes because of chance or because of global warming.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I read a good analogy today. If you throw two dice, sometimes you get two sixes. Global warming increases the chances of getting two sixes. However, for each individual throw, you don't know if you got two sixes because of chance or because of global warming.

Correction: MAY increase the odds of rolling to sixes, according to some models. The point is not to downplay the issue of global warming, it's to ask that people not feel entitled to making sloppy arguments just because they are politically correct.

Edit: I'd even allow for PROBABLY increase the odds of "rolling two sixes". But seriously, it doesn't help to allow people to peddle mushy-headed nonsense on the grounds that you share some of their conclusions.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I read a good analogy today. If you throw two dice, sometimes you get two sixes. Global warming increases the chances of getting two sixes. However, for each individual throw, you don't know if you got two sixes because of chance or because of global warming.

Better analogy: with regular dice one has one chance in 36 of rolling two to get twelve. But change the faces of the die from "one to six" to "four to nine", and you get five chances in 36 to get twelve and 21 chances of higher rolls. If "higher rolls" means storms more devastating -- then that is a bad proposition. (Just don't ask me how to get such unconventional dice). With global warming one may not have changed the game, but one may have changed the consequences.

I'm no gambler, but I would choose craps over Russian Roulette any day. Craps is a losing proposition, but at least one gets out of it alive. Global warming is the climatological equivalent of Russian Roulette.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Correction: MAY increase the odds of rolling to sixes, according to some models. The point is not to downplay the issue of global warming, it's to ask that people not feel entitled to making sloppy arguments just because they are politically correct.

Edit: I'd even allow for PROBABLY increase the odds of "rolling two sixes". But seriously, it doesn't help to allow people to peddle mushy-headed nonsense on the grounds that you share some of their conclusions.

Jordan, there's already a +1 mod from the DM on the 2D6 roll from 500 years of human industrial/environmental activity. It goes to a +2 this decade because some of the munchkins pissed off the DM...

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Don't mix climate and weather. Individual events, even extreme ones, are not directly attributable to long-term changes in climate, except in so far as some models predict that certain events will become more frequent. Make the case on its own merits, without falling into sloppy rhetoric or weird little asides about blizzards in the Midwest.

But it is sufficient to blame the Philippine typhoon on global warming, because it is a fact that global warming is making extreme weather worse and more common. This was the worst hurricane ever to strike land. That means something. It means we need to end the use of fossil fuels. Republicans refuse to face this at all. Democrats want to make some changes, but not fast enough. Our politics is in the way of the changes we need to make. It's as simple as that, and this will be a key 4T driver.

How many times can you attribute every disaster to "weather" and not realize what is happening to our "climate"? If you are a Reaganoid Tea Partier, apparently forever.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

This was the worst hurricane ever to strike land. That means something.

Based on what criteria?

(That is, actual criteria and not Eric-fabricated-criteria)

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But it is sufficient to blame the Philippine typhoon on global warming, because it is a fact that global warming is making extreme weather worse and more common.

No. It is not sufficient to blame the typhoon on global warming. This is standard Eric nonsense. Take a small piece of scientific knowledge and spin it to mean what ever you wish it to mean.

This was the worst hurricane ever to strike land.

Why exactly should anyone trust a statement like this coming from someone who doesn't even understand the difference between the terms "hurricane" and "typhoon"?

That means something. It means we need to end the use of fossil fuels. Republicans refuse to face this at all. Democrats want to make some changes, but not fast enough. Our politics is in the way of the changes we need to make. It's as simple as that, and this will be a key 4T driver.

Your political opinions would be more impactful if you didn't routinely base them on stuff you just make up.

How many times can you attribute every disaster to "weather" and not realize what is happening to our "climate"? If you are a Reaganoid Tea Partier, apparently forever.

How about you stop conflating the two just because you think it bolsters your argument. Every time you do that, you just give deniers more opportunities to change the subject. Your "make believe" statements make it harder, not easier, to convince people that hard choices are going to have to be made.

*tags his way out*

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

*tags his way out*

Roll up a new character.

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

Roll up a new character.

eh? Get the reference, not the relevance. Do better next time.

One argument we've seen recently from the 'skeptic' side has been a claim that warming stopped or slowed since 1998. That was a strong el-nino year at the hottest point of a solar cycle, and thus an unusually hot year. One can create short term trends showing cooling if you cherry pick the starting point of your trend at the hottest year ever.

A new paper has come out that attempts to fill in missing data from the arctic and antarctic regions. The RealClimate review headlines it Global Warming Since 1997 Underestimated by Half. There aren't very many weather stations in the far north and south. Filling in the data from stations around the edges and from satellite reading of the upper atmosphere is apparently not an easy task. Some outsiders used a mathematical technique called kriging to fill in the gaps. The resulting interpretation showed temperatures higher than previous methods of interpretation, which goes a long way to explain why the Arctic ice melted a lot faster than anyone anticipated. If one accepts the analysis, there wasn't a pause in global warming since 1998, it's just that most of the warming was focused near the poles.

Somewhat technical. The comment sections give an idea how the alarmist and denialist pros flame at each other... somewhat more politely than we do.

***

There is another new RealClimate article up that reviews the role of cosmic rays on global weather, Simple Physics and Climate. A while ago the skeptics were attempting to attribute an important role in climate change to cosmic radiation. Simple Physics and Climate review recent papers showing no significant link exists.

Originally Posted by RealClimate

Some may ask why we keep revisiting the question about cosmic rays and climate, after presenting all the evidence to the contrary.

One reason is that science is never settled, and there are still some lingering academic communities nourishing the idea that changes in the sun or cosmic rays play a role. For this reason, a European project was estaqblished in 2011, COST-action TOSCA (Towards a more complete assessment of the impact of solar variability on the Earth’s climate), whose objective is to provide a better understanding of the “hotly debated role of the Sun in climate change” (not really in the scientific fora, but more in the general public discourse).

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Based on what criteria?

(That is, actual criteria and not Eric-fabricated-criteria)

News reports are sufficient criteria.

Raising the red herring that weather is not climate is the ultimate in cynical nonsense. It only serves corporate greed. Listen to the 350.org folks. They know the score.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

News reports are sufficient criteria.

Raising the red herring that weather is not climate is the ultimate in cynical nonsense. It only serves corporate greed. Listen to the 350.org folks. They know the score.

You are, and continue to be, a nit wit. The occurence of a severe tropical storm no more proves global warming, than the occurence of a severe snow storm disproves it. Stop tainting the issue with your easily refuted induction fallacies and continuing need to shoehorn every conceivable topic into a partisan framework.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

News reports are sufficient criteria.

Raising the red herring that weather is not climate is the ultimate in cynical nonsense. It only serves corporate greed. Listen to the 350.org folks. They know the score.

I'm dubious about the news reports. Depending on whether the media outlet is corporate owned or liberal leaning, you can get entirely different accounts. One has to keep in touch with the scientific papers. I've been following RealClimate. Don't know about 350.org.

Weather is not climate. One storm doesn't say much about anything. However, the 'weather is not climate' mantra repeated blindly without following the scientific studies plotting storm trends is purest bull.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I'm dubious about the news reports. Depending on whether the media outlet is corporate owned or liberal leaning, you can get entirely different accounts. One has to keep in touch with the scientific papers. I've been following RealClimate. Don't know about 350.org.

I'm not so dubious about network news reports; they will do until the scientific papers come out. Safe to say it was at least one of the worst hurricanes ever.

Weather is not climate. One storm doesn't say much about anything. However, the 'weather is not climate' mantra repeated blindly without following the scientific studies plotting storm trends is purest bull.

That's right.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

You are, and continue to be, a nit wit. The occurence of a severe tropical storm no more proves global warming, than the occurence of a severe snow storm disproves it. Stop tainting the issue with your easily refuted induction fallacies and continuing need to shoehorn every conceivable topic into a partisan framework.

You are, and continue to be, a nit wit. Saying that storms are NOT becoming more severe due to global warming is the purest poppycock, and repeating the same nonsense that this is not a partisan issue (even after seeing the poll numbers I quoted) is the purest bullshit.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'm not so dubious about network news reports; they will do until the scientific papers come out. Safe to say it was at least one of the worst hurricanes ever.

That's right.

Well, it may have been one of the worst tropical storms ever. Storms in the East Pacific are called typhoons, not hurricanes.

That might be what some of the blowback is about; simple language terminology.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Well, it may have been one of the worst tropical storms ever. Storms in the East Pacific are called typhoons, not hurricanes.

That might be what some of the blowback is about; simple language terminology.

Only with vandal, I think. Everybody knows those terms, and everybody knows what I mean; to argue over that is really, really stupid. But what can you expect from vandal? For "blowback," he doesn't count.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You are, and continue to be, a nit wit. Saying that storms are NOT becoming more severe due to global warming is the purest poppycock, and repeating the same nonsense that this is not a partisan issue (even after seeing the poll numbers I quoted) is the purest bullshit.

Not what you said, dude. You referenced an individual storm, and stated that it was directly attributable to both Global Warming and the Republican party. Stop moving the goal posts. Talk about the trend all you want, or policy, but stop talking nonsense. It doesn't help your case.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Not what you said, dude. You referenced an individual storm, and stated that it was directly attributable to both Global Warming and the Republican party. Stop moving the goal posts. Talk about the trend all you want, or policy, but stop talking nonsense. It doesn't help your case.

Denying the facts through word parsing and name calling does not help your case.

The storm is evidence of global warming and Republican malfeasance. Splitting hairs does not help your case. No thanks for your advice on what helps my case.

If we want less danger from severe storms, we'd better depose Republicans.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Denying the facts through word parsing and name calling does not help your case.

The storm is evidence of global warming and Republican malfeasance. Splitting hairs does not help your case. No thanks for your advice on what helps my case.

If we want less danger from severe storms, we'd better depose Republicans.

Denying what facts? I accept the premise of global warming. That doesn't mean I need to accept every idiot pronouncement concerning it that you feel the need to make.

I can't resist a reply to this post.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

No. It is not sufficient to blame the typhoon on global warming. This is standard Eric nonsense. Take a small piece of scientific knowledge and spin it to mean what ever you wish it to mean.

To prevent some more foot in mouth disease for Eric here goes. Eric, tropical cyclones rotate clockwise in the southern hemisphere.
You're welcome.

Why exactly should anyone trust a statement like this coming from someone who doesn't even understand the difference between the terms "hurricane" and "typhoon"?

Oh, and an add from the above, tropical cyclones are also referred to as "cyclones" in the S. hemisphere.

Your political opinions would be more impactful if you didn't routinely base them on stuff you just make up.

Actually, they'd have more impact if Eric would refrain from using any thread/post handy for such drivel as

Originally Posted by examples of Eric Trivial Drivel

he storm is evidence of global warming and Republican malfeasance. Splitting hairs does not help your case. No thanks for your advice on what helps my case.

If we want less danger from severe storms, we'd better depose Republicans.

How many times can you attribute every disaster to "weather" and not realize what is happening to our "climate"? If you are a Reaganoid Tea Partier, apparently forever.

Eric should do a scientifically sound post about climate change, not assorted weather events. You know stuff like, draw up inferences, propose a provable hypothesis based on evidence Eric gathers. The hypothesis also has to withstand tests from multiple data sources. Here's an example of one I'm having to do for my snus.

I ordered a gallon of food grade glycerol and a half pound of menthol crystals so I can flavor my snus. My inference is that menthol dissolves to some degree in glycerin. Glycerol should work better than water, but not as well as veggie oil. I don't want veggie oil 'cause greasy snus is yuck. Glycerol is ok, but not perfect 'cause it's syrupy and sweet tasting. I don't think water will work , so if I can get enough menthol to dissolve such that a few teaspons of minted glycerol will flavor well is sufficient.

Bonus: Menthol blocks nicotine metabolism so Rags can get an even bigger bang than at present from choosing rustica mixings and potassium carbonate freebasing.

How about you stop conflating the two just because you think it bolsters your argument. Every time you do that, you just give deniers more opportunities to change the subject. Your "make believe" statements make it harder, not easier, to convince people that hard choices are going to have to be made.

Eric is a Boomer. Eric, yes, it's time to put the bullhorn away because you've exceeded your bullhorn quota. Xer's and Millies , I think are about ready to stuff rotten tomatoes down the thing.