Climate change altering frequency, intensity of hurricanes

May 18, 2015

Climate change may be the driving force behind fewer, yet more powerful hurricanes and tropical storms, says a Florida State geography professor.

In a paper published today by Nature Climate Change, Professor Jim Elsner and his former graduate student Namyoung Kang found that rising ocean temperatures are having an effect on how many and hurricanes develop each year.

"We're seeing fewer hurricanes, but the ones we do see are more intense," Elsner said. "When one comes, all hell can break loose."

Prior to this research, there had been some discussions among scientists about how warmer affected the intensity of a hurricane. Elsner and Kang wanted to further explore that concept as well as the number of storms that occurred each year.

Hurricanes can form when ocean waters are 79 degrees Fahrenheit or more. As the warm water evaporates, it provides the energy a storm needs to become a hurricane. Higher temperatures mean higher levels of energy, which would ultimately affect wind speed.

Specifically, Elsner and Kang projected that over the past 30 years, storm speeds have increased on average by 1.3 meters per second—or 3 miles per hour—and there were 6.1 fewer storms than there would have been if land and water temperatures had remained constant.

"It's basically a tradeoff between frequency and intensity," Elsner said.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Earth is roughly 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than it was last century.

Elsner and Kang said the yearly temperatures can also be a good indicator of what's yet to come in a given storm season.

"In a warmer year, stronger but fewer tropical cyclones are likely to occur," said Kang, now deputy director of the National Typhoon Center in South Korea. "In a colder year, on the other hand, weaker but more tropical cyclones."

For the 2015 Atlantic storm season, which begins June 1, the Weather Channel has projected a total of nine named storms, five hurricanes and one major hurricane. The 30-year average is 12 named storms, six hurricanes and three major hurricanes.

The Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Institute at Florida State supported this research.

Explore further: US Atlantic braces for active hurricane season (Update)

More information: Trade-off between intensity and frequency of global tropical cyclones, DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2646

Related Stories

Hurricane season ends with no Atlantic basin storms

November 26, 2013

(Phys.org) —The 2013 Atlantic hurricane season, which officially ends on Saturday, Nov. 30, had the fewest number of hurricanes since 1982, thanks in large part to persistent, unfavorable atmospheric conditions over the ...

NOAA predicts 'average' Atlantic hurricane season

May 22, 2014

Forecasters predict the 2014 Atlantic hurricane season will be "near or below average," thanks to an expected El Nino phenomenon, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Thursday.

Expect quiet hurricane season, researchers say

April 14, 2015

The 2015 Atlantic hurricane season will be significantly less active than the overall averages from 1950 to the present, according to researchers at North Carolina State University.

Recommended for you

Japan scientists detect rare, deep-Earth tremor

August 26, 2016

Scientists who study earthquakes in Japan said Thursday they have detected a rare deep-Earth tremor for the first time and traced its location to a distant and powerful storm.

123 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

denglish
2.1 / 5 (21) May 18, 2015
Wait, wasn't climate change supposed to create more hurricanes, period? Something that didn't happen?

Give us your money, or the Earth gets it.

I want a clean Earth as much as the next guy, but this AGW hoax/crime has got to be stopped.
foolspoo
1 / 5 (7) May 18, 2015
far too many folks judge this book by its metaphorical cover.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (24) May 18, 2015
"I want a clean Earth as much as the next guy, but not if it costs MONEY!"
verkle
May 18, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Vietvet
3.5 / 5 (13) May 18, 2015
@verkle

An idiotic post by an idiot. That is to be expected from verkle.
HeloMenelo
1.9 / 5 (13) May 18, 2015
ooop it seems foolspoo pooped real poo on donglish little dong, and the comments reflecting the outcome quite clearly.... ie a stinky dumb mess. :D This is going to put a new twist in this ongoing hilarious sitcom... here monkeys monkeys.... :D
denglish
1.9 / 5 (13) May 18, 2015
"I want a clean Earth as much as the next guy, but not if it costs MONEY!"


I'm not going to pay hoaxters. Are you?
denglish
2.1 / 5 (11) May 18, 2015
@verkle

An idiotic post by an idiot. That is to be expected from verkle.

The last refuge of an exhausted intellect is insult.
antigoracle
2 / 5 (12) May 18, 2015
More fodder for the ignorant, hungry AGW Chicken Littles.
When the AGW Cult ran out of lies who would have thunk they would resort to comedy.
Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
http://wattsupwit...w-paper/
Vietvet
4.1 / 5 (13) May 18, 2015
@denglish

@verkle

An idiotic post by an idiot. That is to be expected from verkle.

The last refuge of an exhausted intellect is insult.


Verkle is supposed holder of two science degrees who claims Noah's flood is real and that evolution never happened. He is a sanctimonious jerk that has never offered one bit of evidence to back his claims, other than god did it.

Not much intellect there.
ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (11) May 18, 2015
@Vietvet
@denglish

@verkle

An idiotic post by an idiot. That is to be expected from verkle.
The last refuge of an exhausted intellect is insult.
Verkle is supposed holder of two science degrees who claims Noah's flood is real and that evolution never happened. He is a sanctimonious jerk that has never offered one bit of evidence to back his claims, other than god did it.

Not much intellect there.
You know, your constant bashing of others really is getting old, particularly in light of your own recent gaffes.

zz5555
4.1 / 5 (14) May 18, 2015
Wait, wasn't climate change supposed to create more hurricanes, period? Something that didn't happen?

No. There was no consensus on whether there would be more hurricanes due to global warming/climate change. Some studies have indicated that the frequency of hurricanes should stay the same or drop while the intensity increase (e.g., http://dspace.mit....1/62558 and https://gfdl.noaa...hurr.pdf ). But this is the first study that seems to be confirming the projections.
leetennant
4.1 / 5 (13) May 18, 2015
Wait, wasn't climate change supposed to create more hurricanes, period? Something that didn't happen?


No. Like cyclones, the prediction was for fewer at a greater intensity although we would expect some regional variation. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
barakn
3.1 / 5 (19) May 18, 2015
You know, your constant bashing of others really is getting old, particularly in light of your own recent gaffes.

...says the guy/gal who frothed at the mouth for months about the LHC destroying the Earth. Wrong much?
HeloMenelo
1.9 / 5 (13) May 19, 2015
Donglish

"I want a clean Earth as much as the next guy, but not if it costs MONEY!"


I'm not going to pay hoaxters. Are you?


No cause you're spending it all on a bigger donglish ;)

And antisciencegorilla monkey apparently laughing at you because of it (cough cough..while he himself is in dire need of a bigger manhood... cough... ;) ) that's good because we all continue to laugh at him showing of his branch jumping skills o don't know who received more 1 out of 5 ratings in their entire lifespan here on physorg, waterclown or antisciencemonkey lol... :D
Ironwood
1.4 / 5 (9) May 19, 2015
"Shutup", they explained, "the science is settled". "Denier" they scream. The constant insulting of the heretics by the true believers. This sounds more like a religion every day. Be careful not to draw any Al Gore cartoons.
Benni
3.4 / 5 (17) May 19, 2015
Wait, wasn't climate change supposed to create more hurricanes, period? Something that didn't happen?


No. Like cyclones, the prediction was for fewer at a greater intensity although we would expect some regional variation. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.


Noooooooooo, it was both, greater frequency in addition to greater intensity.

In addition to this, winter weather north of the state of Virginia along the east coast was predicted to come to an end within 20 years of the 1998 Hockey Stick............leaves me to wondering what the climatologists at MIT now think about that vaunted prognostication, given the record setting snow storms & frigid temperatures hitting the New England States for the past two winters in succession?
HeloMenelo
2.7 / 5 (14) May 19, 2015
"Shutup", they explained, "the science is settled". "Denier" they scream. The constant insulting of the heretics by the true believers. This sounds more like a religion every day. Be careful not to draw any Al Gore cartoons.


i got plenty cartoons i could show, and the script is all written for us here.... lol :D
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (11) May 19, 2015
"Denier" they scream.

No. They scream "idiot". Because that is what a person without any background knowledge on a subject defending an emotion-based stance is: An idiot.

Defending an emotion-based stance without any background knowledge: THAT is religion.
foolspoo
2 / 5 (4) May 19, 2015
it is discouraging how asininely presumptive these forums have become in just a few short years
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (5) May 19, 2015
denglish
1.6 / 5 (7) May 19, 2015
zz555:

But this is the first study that seems to be confirming the projections.

That sets off alarm bells for me.

Self-fulfilling prophesies are suspect, further moving me to the idea that this is all a way for foundations to maintain their grants, and big-government politics to gain more traction with he masses.

leetennat:
No. Like cyclones, the prediction was for fewer at a greater intensity although we would expect some regional variation. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp


What have we observed? To my knowledge, with the exception of a couple of Asian typhoons, things have been rather quiet.

So, what should we think? We're in for it (unless more carbon cash is bought)? Or the scientific predictions are not panning out?
antigoracle
2 / 5 (8) May 19, 2015
What have we observed? To my knowledge, with the exception of a couple of Asian typhoons, things have been rather quiet.

So, what should we think? We're in for it (unless more carbon cash is bought)? Or the scientific predictions are not panning out?

Not to mention, according to AGW Cult folklore...er..excuse me science, all the heat has been going into the oceans, which are the source of energy for these DIMINISHING hurricanes and typhoons.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) May 19, 2015
@verkle

An idiotic post by an idiot. That is to be expected from verkle.

The last refuge of an exhausted intellect is insult.

Hey, hypocrite man, given your first post was an insult, does that make you super exhausted?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) May 19, 2015
@barakn
You know, your constant bashing of others really is getting old, particularly in light of your own recent gaffes.
...says the guy/gal who frothed at the mouth for months about the LHC destroying the Earth. Wrong much?
So in response to complaints about AGWite bullying, libel is the retort of choice?

zz5555
4.6 / 5 (10) May 19, 2015
zz555:

But this is the first study that seems to be confirming the projections.

That sets off alarm bells for me.

Self-fulfilling prophesies are suspect, further moving me to the idea that this is all a way for foundations to maintain their grants, and big-government politics to gain more traction with he masses.

Interesting. Science advances by making observations and coming up with hypotheses to explain those observations. Hypotheses are tested by making predictions and making more observations to either help confirm or disprove the hypotheses. So climate science has made a prediction and observations have supported those predictions. And you claim that these are then "self-fulfilling prophecies" and cast doubt on the science? Are you, then, claiming that all science is nonsense?

I've heard of someone being anti-science on certain topics, but denying all science? You do take the cake.
HeloMenelo
2.2 / 5 (13) May 20, 2015
naaa, fools poo pooped on antisciencegorilla's head, now all the hot air got inside his overinflated skull, hence the failing to comprehend science... :D
denglish
1 / 5 (8) May 20, 2015
zz555:

I've heard of someone being anti-science on certain topics, but denying all science? You do take the cake.

Observations validate theories.

In the case of AGW, the alarmists have failed many times.

Couple these failures with conflicting science from reputable sources, several scandals, nebulous data points, and money grabbing, and a reasonable person (defined as one that doesn't have political motives) would have some very strong reservations re: what is really happening and what we're being told.
HeloMenelo
2.3 / 5 (12) May 20, 2015
O man what a joke basically what you just mentioned is not even a tiny drop in the ocean wrt the unlimited relentless tactics big oil uses to spread their bureaucracy,corruption, propoganda campaigns, even bribing scientists to lie and threatening them !

http://phys.org/n...ate.html
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (9) May 20, 2015
Observations validate theories.

Right. Just like this observation has helped validate the theories of climate science.
In the case of AGW, the alarmists have failed many times.

I'm not sure what constitutes an "alarmist", but can you name these "many" times that climate science has failed?
Couple these failures with conflicting science from reputable sources, several scandals, nebulous data points, and money grabbing

Hmm. There really isn't much in the way of conflicting science from reputable sources. And the only scandals I'm aware of have been from the anti-science group. (Unless you're classifying out of context emails as a scandal - but that's still a scandal from the anti-science group.) Can you identify any "nebulous data points"? Perhaps you're just misunderstanding the science. And can you identify any money grabbing from the scientists?
barakn
3.1 / 5 (17) May 20, 2015
@barakn
You know, your constant bashing of others really is getting old, particularly in light of your own recent gaffes.
...says the guy/gal who frothed at the mouth for months about the LHC destroying the Earth. Wrong much?
So in response to complaints about AGWite bullying, libel is the retort of choice? -ubavontuba
"Frothed at the mouth" is a figure of speech. It wasn't meant to imply you were infected with rabies, and if that's the impression people got, I'm sorry. But about the LHC, you were a fanatic, and charges of libel just make you a liar trying to distance yourself from your own history.
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (9) May 20, 2015
and a reasonable person (defined as one that doesn't have political motives)

But you've indicated on another thread that your objection to the science is based on purely political motives, so I guess you're not a reasonable person (by your definition).
barakn
3.1 / 5 (17) May 20, 2015
Here's where uba suggested the asteroid belt was a planet destroyed by a cosmic ray: https://www.physi...-1003206 Clearly the presence of an asteroid belt means the LHC will destroy us all. Here's uba suggesting a petition of ESA and CERN because of the scary LHC: http://www.psyclo...sg=71519 Uba from phys.org's former sister site: "This is dangerous. Clearly the arguments put forward by the safety committee are wrong." http://www.physfo...ry276492
Uba quote from this very forum: "This just serves to show that LHC proponents really DON'T care about life!" http://phys.org/n...urt.html
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) May 21, 2015
and a reasonable person (defined as one that doesn't have political motives)

But you've indicated on another thread that your objection to the science is based on purely political motives, so I guess you're not a reasonable person (by your definition).

I really love seeing uba's own words being used to defeat his denialistic contrarianism.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) May 21, 2015
Observations validate theories.

Right. Just like this observation has helped validate the theories of climate science.
In the case of AGW, the alarmists have failed many times.

I'm not sure what constitutes an "alarmist", but can you name these "many" times that climate science has failed?
Couple these failures with conflicting science from reputable sources, several scandals, nebulous data points, and money grabbing

Hmm. There really isn't much in the way of conflicting science from reputable sources. And the only scandals I'm aware of have been from the anti-science group. (Unless you're classifying out of context emails as a scandal - but that's still a scandal from the anti-science group.) Can you identify any "nebulous data points"? Perhaps you're just misunderstanding the science. And can you identify any money grabbing from the scientists?


***slow clap, cheers*** Well said indeed.
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (9) May 21, 2015
and a reasonable person (defined as one that doesn't have political motives)

But you've indicated on another thread that your objection to the science is based on purely political motives, so I guess you're not a reasonable person (by your definition).

I really love seeing uba's own words being used to defeat his denialistic contrarianism.

That wasn't uba, that was denglish. Or is denglish a sock puppet of uba? It's hard to keep track of the sock puppets.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) May 22, 2015
@barakn
You know, your constant bashing of others really is getting old, particularly in light of your own recent gaffes.
...says the guy/gal who frothed at the mouth for months about the LHC destroying the Earth. Wrong much?
So in response to complaints about AGWite bullying, libel is the retort of choice? -ubavontuba
"Frothed at the mouth" is a figure of speech. It wasn't meant to imply you were infected with rabies, and if that's the impression people got, I'm sorry. But about the LHC, you were a fanatic, and charges of libel just make you a liar trying to distance yourself from your own history.
This is a mischaracterization. I simply pointed out the physics in their earlier safety assessments were incorrect, and asserted, therefore, their stated claims of safety weren't assured. I was eventually vindicated on all points of the applicable physics.

I did regularly state that I doubted it was actually dangerous.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) May 22, 2015
Here's where uba suggested the asteroid belt was a planet destroyed by a cosmic ray:
As a sarcastic question in response to a question of ignorance.

Here's uba suggesting a petition of ESA and CERN because of the scary LHC:
Another mischaracterization. I was just supporting someone else's suggestion.

Maybe you don't live where civil protest is acceptable?

Uba from phys.org's former sister site: "This is dangerous. Clearly the arguments put forward by the safety committee are wrong."
They were wrong, and they subsequently admitted it.

Uba quote from this very forum: "This just serves to show that LHC proponents really DON'T care about life!"
Said in response to a jerk who would rather the world be annihilated, than bother to be sure the physics of the safety analysis were correct.

So again, in response to complaints about AGWite bullying, libel is the retort of choice?

Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) May 22, 2015
Wow, data says more, less powerful storms. I wonder how they got that wrong. Wild.

The number will probably go up a little now that the Sun is waxing, but by an large, Earth conditions are changing it to more, less powerful storms, with your usual Katrina's etc..
DarkLordKelvin
3.1 / 5 (17) May 22, 2015
Wow, data says more, less powerful storms. I wonder how they got that wrong. Wild.


Um .. they didn't ... you did ... or do you (quite uncharacteristically) happen to have a reference to support your claim this time around? It says right in the article:

"In a paper published today by Nature Climate Change, Professor Jim Elsner and his former graduate student Namyoung Kang found that rising ocean temperatures are having an effect on how many tropical storms and hurricanes develop each year. "We're seeing fewer hurricanes, but the ones we do see are more intense," Elsner said. "When one comes, all hell can break loose."

Are you saying they are lying there?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) May 22, 2015
Number of tropical storms:
http://www.skepti...ency.gif
Number of hurricanes:
http://www1.ncdc....cACE.png
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) May 22, 2015
It's OK DuckLord, that's what my corny "water bowl," theory says to. Quack. Quack.
DarkLordKelvin
3.1 / 5 (17) May 22, 2015
Number of tropical storms:
http://www.skepti...ency.gif


Thank you, that's a start. Now, what about the other oceans? The article is about global trends, after all.

Number of hurricanes:
http://www1.ncdc....cACE.png


No, that's not about number of hurricanes, or even the average intensity of hurricanes, it's about the total accumulated cyclonic energy in the north atlantic. It shows no long-term trend, and since it's a total, a low number could arise from a few hurricanes, even if they are very intense, or from a larger number of weaker hurricanes. In other words, it doesn't support or refute your claim.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) May 22, 2015
OK, DLK, you're right, but the fact that you can't interpret that as meaning what it does demonstrates a problem in your education that I can not address.
That information is sufficient for my point, do you somehow think that the Earth is asymmetric around the equator somehow, relevantly? That reflects and lack of understanding about the tropics.

Or maybe there's something I don't understand, and you could point out the disparity, I am not, after all omniscient.

But really, if you want more data of the same strain, why not get it yourself? Your question is just wasting time.

If you found similar data, you don't need to mention it, if you found conflicting then you'd could rub it in my face.

See?

You don't look so smart when you're trying to look so smart. Quack, quack.
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (9) May 22, 2015
It's interesting that W_P picked SkepticalScience to get his graphic from on the frequency of tropical storms. Here's what SkS says about the frequency of hurricanes and global warming (http://www.skepti...iate.htm ):
concluding "increasing cyclone numbers has lead to a distinct trend in the number of major hurricanes and one that is clearly associated with greenhouse warming" (Holland 2007). However, this was refuted by an analysis of monitoring systems stating "improved monitoring in recent years is responsible for most, if not all, of the observed trend in increasing frequency of tropical cyclones" (Landsea 2007). In other words, the reason more hurricanes are being observed may be due to an improved ability to observe them, thanks to aircraft, radar and satellites.

So the graphic is not indicative of an increase in the frequency of North Atlantic Tropical Storms.
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (10) May 22, 2015
That information is sufficient for my point, do you somehow think that the Earth is asymmetric around the equator somehow

Actually, it is asymmetric. That's something that a water bowl without land masses (that's a hint) can't simulate. ;)
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) May 22, 2015
zz5555, well, I was counting, hoping really, someone would pick that out.
Of course leave it to a skeptigoon.

It is rather ingenuous of you goons to think that folks miss something as big as a tropical storm, but you'll say anything at all, I notice.

I was just hoping to get in some licks about; if the devil is quoting scripture, it is justice if his tongue turns to fire.

LOL. Well done, thanks.

About the water bowl, it predicts the relevant effect. If you want better, like I always say, just change the model to be a water world with ice caps, then incorporate land masses and prevailing winds. As for the asymmetry, relevant asym., thanks, thanks again!
DarkLordKelvin
3.1 / 5 (17) May 22, 2015
OK, DLK, you're right, but the fact that you can't interpret that as meaning what it does demonstrates a problem in your education that I can not address.
You aren't qualified to comment on my education.
That information is sufficient for my point, do you somehow think that the Earth is asymmetric around the equator somehow, relevantly?
Yes, I do .. both N/S and E/W. I think that patterns of cold and warm currents, and differing landmasses and climates mean that there are meaningfully different weather patterns in the various major oceans .. that's why I asked you to support your claim.
But really, if you want more data of the same strain, why not get it yourself?
Why should I do your homework for you? It was your claim, it goes against published articles by experts, so asking you to support it is completely reasonable in a scientific context. Your response reveals that don't know or care if your claim is true or not .. you're just flinging poop, as is your wont.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) May 22, 2015
that's what my corny "water bowl," theory says to
besides being incorrect spelling, your statement is also false and can be proven to be false

there is absolutely no evidence that your water bowl nor your interpretations of it's information are able to make any predictions at all whatsoever

Nor is there any historical proof that your water bowl has in any way, shape or form given any predictive results that are provable

no evidence
no proof

there is absolutely no legitimate, verifiable or scientific anything usable as proof that can be validated anywhere on the internet regarding your water bowl
you only have your comments that "it must be true"

hearsay is simply not valid proof, nor is it in any way a scientific evidence, nor does it support your insistence that something is correct or even scientific

all you have is continuous obfuscation that has been repeatedly proven false & debunked by Thermo, DLK and others

proven here in PO time and again
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) May 22, 2015
Quack, quack, yes, everyone knows they ARE asymmetric, the key word is relevantly. Germanely to the discussion?

Do you have anything along those lines?
No I did,'t think so.

And that you can't understand what was posted or how it applies does address your education.

It demonstrates you don't understand how thermodynamics of enthalpy simplify the observed phenomenon.

Stumpy, shouldn't you be playing in a thunderstorm? I am not sure how you can say my water bowl doesn't predict anything and keep asking for proof, then when it shows up, case in point above, you say there is no proof.

You must be one blissful personage.

My water bowl is predicting current events in the poles, which scientists are saying are mystifying, I can thank DuckLord for demonstrating it here (do you think he noticed, via convolutions he wound up agreeing with my premise not the articles?, and will he ever live it down?
Easily, by denial!)

Stumpy, glad you're back, have you put on weight?
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) May 22, 2015
I am not sure how you can say ... keep asking for proof, then when it shows up, case in point above, you say there is no proof
you've never once provided ANY proof that can be validated

you've only "said" there is proof
a comment or soliloquy of gobbleydy-gook that is simply your insistence that something must be real is not valid proof, nor is it scientific evidence

you cannot even provide second party validation or historical posts that prove your water-bowl

just like you've not ever once been able to refute, debunk or in any way find fault with any scientific study

not once
not ever
and definitely not here on PO

so-
you made the claim: now provide the proof

show the study where your waterbowl was published and withstood the peer review of a reputable scientific journal
show where your physics is capable of withstanding scrutiny

so far, you've been repeatedly proven a liar
over and over

where is the study you published as "proof"?
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) May 22, 2015
My water bowl is predicting current events in the poles
a claim not validated by scientific scrutiny nor by historical proof
I can thank DuckLord for demonstrating it here
and i can definitely see where you don't understand the physics involved nor the reason for your failure

again, where is the valid scientific proof?
you said the proof is here... where is that link to the valid scientific proof?
where is that study which withstood the scientific scrutiny of those who actually do this for a living? because all you can say is that you are speculating and guessing

at least people like Thermo are working in the field and have publications/patents in said field...
all you have is speculation, delusion, obfuscation and lies so far

show us all the "proof"
show us the scientifically scrutinized studies
DarkLordKelvin
2.9 / 5 (17) May 22, 2015
Quack, quack, yes, everyone knows they ARE asymmetric, the key word is relevantly. Germanely to the discussion?
Are you drunk? I specifically addressed the question of why "asymmetry around the equator" should be relevant to weather phenomena. How in the hell could anyone think it would not be? Are there more tropical storms on average in the northern or southern hemisphere? How about the Atlantic vs. the Pacific? How about the Indian?
It demonstrates you don't understand how thermodynamics of enthalpy simplify the observed phenomenon.
I understand far more about thermodynamics and enthalpy than you can ever hope to .. that has been proved time and time again on these threads. The very phrasing of your comment "the thermodynamics of enthalpy" is asinine ... there is no definition of enthalpy outside the context of thermodynamics .. you are implying nuance where there is none, and trying to sound intelligent by using words you heard smart people using somewhere.
barakn
2.9 / 5 (15) May 23, 2015
Here's where uba suggested the asteroid belt was a planet destroyed by a cosmic ray:
As a sarcastic question in response to a question of ignorance.

Nope. All one has to to do is continue reading. Someone else suggested a more plausible reason (Jupiter), and you vociferously argued against it, post after post after post.
Here's uba suggesting a petition of ESA and CERN because of the scary LHC:
Another mischaracterization. I was just supporting someone else's suggestion.

Maybe you don't live where civil protest is acceptable?
The question was whether you were against the LHC. The difference between suggesting and supporting is trivial. You have presented a non-argument.

Uba from phys.org's former sister site: "This is dangerous. Clearly the arguments put forward by the safety committee are wrong."
They were wrong, and they subsequently admitted it.
Bullshit.
barakn
2.9 / 5 (15) May 23, 2015
Uba quote from this very forum: "This just serves to show that LHC proponents really DON'T care about life!"
Said in response to a jerk who would rather the world be annihilated, than bother to be sure the physics of the safety analysis were correct.
Argumentum ad hominem. Your anti-LHC knee-jerk reflexes are hard to suppress, aren't they? No one "would rather the world be annihilated," that's just you trying to demonize your opposition.
So again, in response to complaints about AGWite bullying, libel is the retort of choice?

You were such an ass about the LHC on physforum that when you suddenly went silent an entire topic with poll was posted at http://www.physfo...ic=21660 with the original poster asking "PhysOrg's chief LHC alarmist hasn't shown up in nearly a month. This begs the question, what has happened to dear old uba?." Curiously no one voted for option 3, "He's lost interest in protesting the LHC tests."
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) May 23, 2015
Nope. All one has to to do is continue reading. Someone else suggested a more plausible reason (Jupiter), and you vociferously argued against it, post after post after post.
Out of context argument.

The question was whether you were against the LHC. The difference between suggesting and supporting is trivial. You have presented a non-argument.
I was never "against the LHC." From beginning to end, my beef was with the physics of the safety assessments.

Bullshit.
Truth.

"...the new safety anlaysis ...essentially supports all of the contentions I've made.

1. Black holes are plausible at CERN.

2. The cosmic ray analogy (in regards to black hole formation) is falsified.

3. Earth capture is likely.

4. The captured blackholes might not evaporate (implying they can only grow).

That's right. All four of my contentions are corroborated..."

http://lofi.forum...120.html

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) May 23, 2015
Argumentum ad hominem. Your anti-LHC knee-jerk reflexes are hard to suppress, aren't they? No one "would rather the world be annihilated," that's just you trying to demonize your opposition.
Lie. What I wrote is essentially what was said, there is no "demonizing" on my part.

You were such an ass about the LHC on physforum that when you suddenly went silent an entire topic with poll was posted at http://www.physfo...ic=21660 with the original poster asking "PhysOrg's chief LHC alarmist hasn't shown up in nearly a month. This begs the question, what has happened to dear old uba?." Curiously no one voted for option 3, "He's lost interest in protesting the LHC tests."
I did lose interest. As I said, I was vindicated and the LHC had even apparently adjusted the beam energies (as I had suggested) to ensure escape velocity of the highest energy products. Problem solved.

So, is rehashing it helping your AGWite cause?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) May 23, 2015
barakn,

I know you have some familiarity with physics. Maybe you might enjoy a fun discovery of mine.

Einstein wrote, that to an internal observer, a room being pulled under a constant 1g acceleration is indistinguishable (by experiment) from a room hanging from a tree by a rope.

Do you believe this?

If I (as an inside observer) can demonstrate by internal experiment that the room is either accelerating or is at rest in a gravitational field, would you concede I know a thing or two about physics?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) May 23, 2015
@barakn
when you suddenly went silent an entire topic with poll was posted at http://www.physfo...ic=21660 with the original poster asking "PhysOrg's chief LHC alarmist hasn't shown up in nearly a month. This begs the question, what has happened to dear old uba?."
Sorry, I just had to comment. I just read that thread. I didn't know I had left such an impression. It's hilarious. I particularly liked AlphaNumeric's post. What a hoot.

Thanks. Made my day.

Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) May 23, 2015
DuckLordQuack, quack.
OK you are so smart Duck lord, thank you for pointing out that landmasses are different on the sides of the equator. But you MUST admit, probably less than 0.005% of the population of the world understand that landmasses are different in size, shape, and elevation, even foliage, thank you for pointing that subtle and rare fact out, I am sure you benefited the education of the entire forum, and saved us hours of personal research.

Now please explain, because I'm so dumb, how cyclonic energy is different because of land masses, and how that is relevant to the above.

Energy.

Quack, quack!

And not to gloat, but if you did have a sophomore level of thermo, you would understand the simple causal relation in cyclonic energy.
OK, I can't help it, I'm gloating.
Snickering alot to.

You see, you do have some background in sciences, obviously, but not obviously it is really spotty, I have no idea HOW you don't get some concepts and not other fundaments.
DarkLordKelvin
2.9 / 5 (15) May 23, 2015
thank you for pointing out that landmasses are different on the sides of the equator. But you MUST admit, probably less than 0.005% of the population of the world understand that landmasses are different in size, shape, and elevation, even foliage, thank you for pointing that subtle and rare fact out
I only mentioned it because your dumb self seemed unaware of the significance, now you are denying it outright. Wow. I also mentioned current patterns, which are at least as important .. otherwise, why do only 1/3 (instead of 1/2) of tropical storms occur south of the equator? Why is the Western Pacific the most active region, and the Northern Indian Ocean the least active?

[ctd]
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) May 23, 2015
Stumpy,
I am no longer puzzled as to why a field so pregnant with potential and full of possibilities has been a disappointment for the last 20 years.

Perhaps if thermo et&al were to leave the field, we might see some progress.

Now you must admit, the fields of Risk and Predictive Sciences have made great leaps recently, advances in not only the state of the art, but in how they are perceived.

It amazes me your ?mind? is so closed that you are unable to draw any conclusions of your own unless they are published somewhere. But here is where we are different, I know the facts behind publications, they are people like you and me, capable of making the same errors and fundamental mistakes.

I mean you agree that ~255watts/m2 reaches Earth from the Sun. Published.
You agree that the Sun is the major driver of climate, everything. Not published
It takes all of that to bring us to "ambient," simplistically speaking. Not published.

cont.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) May 23, 2015
The Sun has an 11 year cycle in which it's energy output changes by 1/1366th. (Published)
1/1366 of 255 is about 1/5, or 0.2Watts/m2. (Only an idiot would need this published)

Heat from fossil fuels amounts to about 140 tetrawatthours per year. (Published)
This translates to about 0.04 Watts/m2. (Unit conversion)

This means mankind releases 1/5 of the (0.2*0.2=0.04) of the energy we know changes climate. (Derived from above.)

Further, it is released as waste heat (published-rather derived through thermodynamics). It is released where we are seeing the effects of Climate Change the most, US, China, Europe. N. Hemisphere. Published.

See, if you're not obstinate, climate change is VERY simple.
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (16) May 23, 2015
[ctd]

Now please explain, because I'm so dumb, how cyclonic energy is different because of land masses, and how that is relevant to the above.


First of all, your claim had nothing to do with "cyclonic energy" ... your claim was that there had been a recent pattern of increased frequency, and reduced average intensity, of tropical storms. All I did was ask you to provide support for that claim, which you could not do, except for in one out of 7 tropical storm forming regions globally .. and even then, the "support" was rather weak.

So, with regard to tropical storm frequency and intensity (the topic under discussion), the different ocean currents and landmass-driven weather patterns in the various basins either enhance or suppress conditions for tropical storm formation and strengthening. That's why you need to consider more than just the North Atlantic region ... that you don't know this stuff going in, disqualifies you from making claims in the first place.
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (16) May 23, 2015
This means mankind releases 1/5 of the (0.2*0.2=0.04) of the energy we know changes climate. (Derived from above.)


Nope .. you snuck another claim in there, which is certainly not published, and which you have never provided a shred of evidence to support. Specifically, you are implying here, and have outright claimed before, that the 11-year solar sunspot cycle is responsible for "driving major climate effects" ... I have challenged that assertion every time you have made it, and you have never even responded to those challenges, much less provided any evidence to support that claim. I have also shown you multiple resources showing that the solar fluctuations are MUCH smaller than the increased forcing from GHG's, and also showing that solar fluctuations are accounted for in the climate change theories and computer models.

So, your silly claim is debunked (again) .. just like virtually every claim you have ever made here.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) May 23, 2015
So, with regard to tropical storm frequency and intensity (the topic under discussion), the different ocean currents and landmass-driven weather patterns in the various basins either enhance or suppress conditions for tropical storm formation and strengthening. That's why you need to consider more than just the North Atlantic region ... that you don't know this stuff going in, disqualifies you from making claims in the first place.


LOL. That you can make this statement shows me I am trying to climb a glass wall coated in grease.
It's about energy, and energy transfer, but thanks for playing. Heat goes from high to low, Heat meaning in this instance, energy/energy states.

[Shaking head]

Heat is what drives these things you poor ignorant sucker. If you had a grasp of these things that exceeded your opinions... ah, but if the wooden horse of troy had foaled, horses today would be so cheap we wouldn't need autos.

I supposed you simply have my sympathy now, Ducky.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) May 23, 2015
Well DuckLord, you challenge something that is accepted so far and wide that I have no concept of how to refute it. Are you really that obstinate or are you really this stupid? (This time, I am NOT being derogatory-these are real inquiries, based on me not believing anyone could be so ignorant.)

Therefore, I think you should tell show us how the changes in the SUN could possibly NOT affect us. Show us a paper showing someone studied this, and found no correlation, amazingly.

It's like you are challenging 2+2 =4. You need to have some heavy guns to prove, heck, SUGGEST otherwise.

So now I am responding, and that response is incredulous belief that you are not really that dumb.
Please, please, please! show me you are not THAT dumb. If you are, I might go back to eating bananas and living in trees, my faith in homo sapien will be so shattered. No! I will be so shatter, I'll go live with Stumpy!
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (16) May 23, 2015
So, with regard to tropical storm frequency and intensity (the topic under discussion), the different ocean currents and landmass-driven weather patterns in the various basins either enhance or suppress conditions for tropical storm formation and strengthening. That's why you need to consider more than just the North Atlantic region ... that you don't know this stuff going in, disqualifies you from making claims in the first place.
LOL. That you can make this statement shows me I am trying to climb a glass wall coated in grease.
I imagine you feel that way frequently when trying to understand sound scientific points or arguments.
It's about energy, and energy transfer, but thanks for playing. Heat goes from high to low, Heat meaning in this instance, energy/energy states.
You say that as if it's not obvious .. any child knows how heat flows, and yes, it's crucial for hurricanes, but there's more to it. Gonna address my point about different global storm patterns?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) May 23, 2015
Here, this is an article with pretty pictures, and simple English, the source is highly credible.
I did find many a skeptigoon propaganda type sites with the strawman that since CO2 is so powerful (based on the propagandistic assumption) that the changes in the Sun can't have a role. Guffaw.

http://www.space....ate.html

so, CO2's what 1.5 watts/m2 should be doing amazing things.

My greatest sympathies,
and
(immdiate post above) It's not about global storm patterns you poor individual, it's about heat being transferred. That you don't get this is the problem. It;s basic. I don't even know how to start with your misconceptions. Is it so simple you miss it?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) May 23, 2015
Here is another, which makes an analogy that 11year cycles change the temperature of the Earth between 0.5 and 1c.

http://www.window...ate.html

Maybe I am being to hard on you.

You HAVE been presented with new information, and facts, have you changed your opinion? If not, what now do you believe differently now that you know 11-year cycles affect climate dramatically?
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (16) May 23, 2015
Well DuckLord, you challenge something that is accepted so far and wide
You either refuse to, or cannot, understand what I wrote.
that I have no concept of how to refute it.
That much, I can believe.
Are you really that obstinate or are you really this stupid?
Neither, you are either deliberately misconstruing what I am challenging, or you don't understand what the hell you are talking about (I could believe either, at this point).
Therefore, I think you should tell show us how the changes in the SUN could possibly NOT affect us.
This is very dishonest of you, you know I never claimed or suggested anything so broad ... I made a much more specific challenge, connected to a phenomenon you claimed was happening: 11-year solar cycles driving global climate phenomena.
Show us a paper showing someone studied this, and found no correlation, amazingly.
I already showed you several sources explaining how these cycles have a minor, at most, effect on climate change.
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (16) May 23, 2015
It's not about global storm patterns
Well, that what your claim referred to, so it's quite odd you would deny it at this point.
it's about heat being transferred.
Yes .. *locally* .. and local conditions for storm development vary, depending on the local current patterns and landmass-driven weather. That's why in the North Atlantic region, storms form in the Caribbean early and late in the hurricane season, but in the summer months, most storms form off the coast of Africa. It's all about conditions being optimal for heat transfer from the warm oceans (via evaporation) to drive formation of well-organized cloud systems (via condensation) in the cooler atmosphere above. The heat transfer part is so bloody obvious most people don't see the need to mention it .. but I guess when it's the only part that one can understand (or is it accept?), as in your case, then one wants to drone on and on about it, and ignore everything else. This really is pretty basic stuff here.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 23, 2015
It amazes me your ?mind? is so closed that you are unable to draw any conclusions of your own unless they are published somewhere
@prophet mendacii
again, this is not about having an open mind or closed mind, it is about the veracity of your claims and the evidence you've provided supporting your claims and conclusions, which is absolutely zero
you have offered absolutely no evidence that is reputable or can be verified externally, or that is scientifically accurate, that can be proven or substantiated
you have only made claims, which are the equivalent of hearsay or backroom whispers

IOW- you are providing absolutely no evidence other than obfuscation and misdirection
ll you can do is prove your adherence to conspiracy, like so
I know the facts behind publications, they are people like you and me, capable of making the same errors and fundamental mistakes
you make the claims
but you've never provided the proof

2B cont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 23, 2015
you make the claims
but you've never provided the proof

just like above, as well as your contentions with the studies i've posted
you make claims that they are wrong, or that there are fundamental mistakes
ok... so you make the claim...
given your claim and the fact that scientists actually look for those kind of mistakes in others work... as well as compete to undermine each other to gain the upper hand...

why have none of the studies that i've posted in the past been retracted, revoked, removed or changed for their fundamental mistakes?

if you have "proven" they are fundamentally flawed, there would be retractions or at least corrections... there is nothing

therefore, we can conclude that your claims are baseless as well as pseudoscience and that your comments are designed to obfuscate as well as distract from reality, not enhance it or correct it

start proving your point and you might actually be acknowledged as something other than a crackpot hack
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 23, 2015
last @prophet mendacii
...climate change is VERY simple
and again, might i add... your continued posting of data points while not adding in context... as well as flooding with minutia while not supporting your position with scientific studies which show not only the maths but also the evidence, only shows and supports what i've been saying for a long time now

you have absolutely nothing and no evidence
only your own delusional claims supported by your own fantasies

had you any reputable science (be it in the fields of Risk and Predictive Sciences or any other field) then you would be a household name for finding and simplifying what we know, just like Einstein was when he simplified E=MC2

might i also add that pejorative comments directed to someone like Thermo, who actually has made progress in the field, only support my assertions regarding your lack of knowledge, capabilities or intelligence

by all means, keep proving my point
i truly appreciate it
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (16) May 23, 2015
Here, this is an article

http://www.space....ate.html

Well, that article was a bit fluffy and vague, lots of quotes from people talking about what MIGHT be happening, but nothing concrete. However, it does (finally) give me what I asked for in regard to a reference for you claim. It also led me to a much more useful reference from the National Academies, which I have downloaded and will start reading to see what the actual experts have to say about this.

http://www.nap.ed...workshop

DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (16) May 23, 2015
Here is another, which makes an analogy that 11year cycles change the temperature of the Earth between 0.5 and 1c.
The reference does make a claim similar to what you wrote (it talks about the global tropospheric temperature, not the temperature of the Earth), but I have to say it looks like it might be confused or taken out of context. I have read some of the actual science papers in this area, and they talk about long term changes of <1 degree C from variations in the max/min irradiances associated with the 11-year cycle. They also mention sunspot-driven local temperature effects in the upper troposphere (30 mb pressure), but I have not seen anything that documents or supports global temperature fluctuations of any magnitude correlated with the 11-year solar cycle, and certainly nothing that oscillates by such a huge margin. Hopefully these details will be explained more clearly in that report I downloaded.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) May 23, 2015
Sorry guys, you're expecting me to wade through far too much BS.

What I can glean throught he gibberings of your mutual bowlinguals (Do they interfere when they're so close together?-try separating them)
Therefore, I think you should tell show us how the changes in the SUN could possibly NOT affect us. end quote

This is very dishonest of you, you know I never claimed or suggeste...


Sorry bub, but that is the only thing I needed to suggest. If you can accept that, we're not arguing.

I really am amazing that I can take an entire webpage out of context. Here I thought they'd be what they were.

Submitted w/most sincere sympathies.
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (16) May 23, 2015
Ok, I just found these quotes about the effects of the 11-year sunspot cycle on global temperatures in the National Academies report:

on p. 1:

"However, no satellite measurements have indicated that solar output and variability have
contributed in a significant way to the increase in global mean temperature in the past 50 years."

on p.3:

"For example, the TSI changes over an 11-year cycle in step with the cycle of sunspots with an amplitude of nearly 0.1 percent, and this variation's small effects (perhaps an amplitude of a few hundredths of a degree centigrade) on temperatures can be detected, albeit with considerable imprecision, in climate records."

So, that is consistent with what I had understood (and written) in the past .. that there are indeed very small effects on global climate from the sunspot-cycle, but that they are essentially negligible when compared with other effects, like albedo changes, the greenhouse effect, etc.

I will keep reading though.
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (16) May 23, 2015
Ok, on p.24 I found a reference to a possible correlation between the 11-year solar cycle and La-Nina/El-Nino oscillations in the Pacific. It references the following article:

G.A. Meehl, J.M. Arblaster, K. Matthes, F. Sassi, and H. van Loon, "Amplifying the Pacific climate system response to a small 11 year solar cycle forcing", Science 325:1114-1118, 2009.

That article makes a pretty strong case that the 11-year cycle does indeed have a measurable effect on the Pacific climate systems. The local effects on surface temperatures can be significantly larger than the average global effects; they claimed a cooling of ~1 degree C for the equatorial Pacific arising from this effect.

However, the caveat here is that all of this is interpretation of observations based on computer modeling, and so its significance should be evaluated in that context. I have not had time to see if there are any similarly strong counter-arguments to this model.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) May 23, 2015
Well, you have my respect for digging.
However, you really are digging into the realm of 2+4=4. I don't need the report. Respectfully if you are getting into the El Nino etc & al, you have gone too far.

Hats off for investigating regional effects. But it's really about the bulk heat. Using this you'll sympathize with the "water bowl" model, because that's what you are really agreeing with currently.

Unless you've got web links, I am really not going to bother.

Still, I appreciate your efforts.
DarkLordKelvin
3.1 / 5 (17) May 23, 2015
I don't need the report.
Of course you do, you didn't know any of what I posted until I posted it.
Respectfully if you are getting into the El Nino etc & al, you have gone too far.
Huh? That's the only significant effect that was identified in the report, at least in the parts I have read so far (which is most of it).
Hats off for investigating regional effects. But it's really about the bulk heat.
Nope, that's ludicrous. I have tried to show you why, using just the sort of "common sense observations" you claim to love so much, but it's like Sanskrit to a pony with you. You have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that it's just "bulk heat" ... it's not even clear what you mean by "bulk heat" .. as opposed to what other kind of heat?.
Using this you'll sympathize with the "water bowl" model, because that's what you are really agreeing with currently.
Nope, not a chance. You have never connected your silly model to anything remotely scientific.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) May 24, 2015
Dude, you've enter the uncomprehending zone again, and the dumb zone again, and the incomprehensibly dumb zone again.

Of course I knew without you posting it. Apparently, you're the only one who didn't.

Circle the wagons, bub, it's not complicated, most average human beings get it, and they haven't done half your work.

Or, are you so silly you think by pretentious research and not discovering the Sun is the most important driver to climate you are going to fool anyone but yourself?

The web has made you delusional my friend.

"Bulk heat," LOL.

You know, you mock my stupid model, but I know it works, and all you ever do is deny it works.
Your the idiot so busy raking the muck at his feet to notice the wonders occurring in heaven.

Enjoy your tiny closed mindedness. Keep mocking me. But it is so simple and you miss the wonder, just because you mock it.

Pretty darn sad.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) May 24, 2015
Hey DuckLord,
You know they say "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery," I wonder if you realize that all you do is follow my comments, twist them, and use the same things.

Here's where you accuse me of copying you.
Snicker.
HeloMenelo
2.5 / 5 (13) May 24, 2015
dddd...dup... i smell i a record being broken.... whoohooo... :D
HeloMenelo
2.5 / 5 (13) May 24, 2015
And the the winner is.....dddrrrrrrrrup: Yup you guessed it.. Watermonkey :D :D :D
For raking in the most number One out of Five ratings ever Lol.... Congratualation monkey (oohhh that really is a downer ;) ) but not for the rest of the educated proffesionals, well done DLK and Captain Stumpy for your intelligent responses.

Now... watermonkeys's dumb replies made him really earn it today.. now.... go shine that red nose of yours some more with the can of wax you've won and come back with a few more :D remember the big whopper requires that 200 posts as your target, you're far from it... but it's looking better :D :D
HeloMenelo
2.5 / 5 (13) May 24, 2015
Dude, you've enter the uncomprehending zone again, and the dumb zone again, and the incomprehensibly dumb zone again.

Of course I knew without you posting it. Apparently, you're the only one who didn't.
....


Aaah the silkwormypuppetmasters really pulled the strings hard on watermonkey today, but remember to reply intelligently requires and education, that which our well respected DLK and Captain Stumpy does have... and you not... ;) But hey mental school might someday work those tiny 2 braincells of yours into 3 ?? not ?
HeloMenelo
2.5 / 5 (13) May 24, 2015
Oooohooo... what a ssshow :D :D
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) May 24, 2015
so far, the only thing alche/prophet mendacii has said that was true was when he used transference to DLK in his statement... he said
The web has made you delusional my friend
and this is true, but only as it applies to water/alche/prometh-probie

the great thing about the internet is it's ability to share data and scientific evidence

what DLK has been showing is the results of SCIENTIFIC evidence as well as reports that describe physics and physical properties, etc

What we HAVE seen is that there are STUDIES and science supporting AGW and DLK, and nothing supporting alche/mendacii

what alche/mendacii is sharing is called PERSONAL CONJECTURE without ANY evidence or any supporting studies or conclusions that can be verified or validated

points and kudos to DLK
epic failure (still? again?) for alche/positum stultum prophetam ... et al
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) May 24, 2015
It's amazing, I just showed you that the Sun cycles ARE the most important driver of climate, something lacking in what one would laughingly call your education, and you talk to me thus?

That's not very grateful, and shows no class.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) May 24, 2015
...lacking in what one would laughingly call your education, and you talk to me thus?

That's not very grateful, and shows no class.
@positum stultum prophetam/alche et al
logical fallacy as well as redirection attempt

????
you've:
-made claims in the past that all the studies i linked are fundamentally flawed, yet have never once been able to provide a single shred of evidence supporting your conclusions...
thus it is a blatant lie and attempt to redirect from your lack of evidence or scientific support

-linked a lot of simple physics points without regard of known physical interactions and claimed that it justified your conclusions, regardless of the observed, collected and modeled studies that conformed to the scientific method refuting you

-there is MUCH more to post about... but it boils down to this:

you are the only one displaying ignorance, stupidity and lack of scientific acumen

your Dunning-Kruger is showing
subpepper
3.8 / 5 (13) May 24, 2015
I want a clean Earth as much as the next guy, but this AGW hoax/crime has got to be stopped.


@denglish
Friend, at this point in the game, your factless political rants are falling on deaf ears.
DarkLordKelvin
3.1 / 5 (17) May 24, 2015
Of course I knew without you posting it. Apparently, you're the only one who didn't.
Utter B.S. .. first of all, the scientific consensus prior to the meeting in 2011 that produced that report was that the 11-year cycle produced minor, if any, effects on climate .. that is what I have told you from the get go, and why I asked you to support your claim. You never provided any specific support for your claim; even these most recent weblinks were vague at best.

Second, the one result that does seem to support your claim is quite recent, and quite specific .. it's also quite complex, requiring both surface level and stratospheric effects operating in concert to PERHAPS produce a noticeable periodic response. You had no idea of it's existence, because you think research is "pretentious" apparently, and refuse to educate yourself by reading scientific resources. If you had known about it and pointed it out, I wouldn't have had to dig it out of that report for you.
DarkLordKelvin
3.1 / 5 (17) May 24, 2015
I wonder if you realize that all you do is follow my comments, twist them, and use the same things.
I have never, ever done that. I respond to any comment on any article that I think is wrong. If I am pretty sure I am right, I post a suggested correction in a helpful tone .. with as much of a clear, science-based explanation as I can give in the space provided. If I think the poster is engaging in pseudoscience, my tone might be less helpful at first, and then progress to outright irritation/exasperation. Sometimes, if I don't understand what is being said/claimed, I ask for clarifying details, to avoid making an ass of myself by assuming too much about what the poster might be trying to say.

In this case,I already acknowledged that your weblinks supporting your claim led me to that extremely useful National Academies report .. which showed that my doubting of your claim was quite well-founded. As usual, I have science on my side, and you have Drs. Dunning & Kruger.
DarkLordKelvin
3.1 / 5 (17) May 24, 2015
It's amazing, I just showed you that the Sun cycles ARE the most important driver of climate, something lacking in what one would laughingly call your education, and you talk to me thus?
No you jackass ... you utterly failed to show that. You led me to find a report that shows, until very recently, there was ZERO evidence that the 11-year cycles have important climactic effects. Now, some extremely technical studies, based on computer-models of climate (and we know how much respect you have for those), has produced some strong evidence that there may be a correlation of linked cycles in Pacific currents and the stratospheric ozone levels above the Pacific, with the maxima in the 11-year cycle.

So, that's it .. a single, recent result on a local climatic phenomenon. That's nothing like what you claimed, which was that the 11-year cycles are the single most important driving force for climate ... there is still precisely ZERO support for that claim.
HeloMenelo
2.3 / 5 (12) May 25, 2015
Ooooohhh right in the middle lol..... well done watermonkey you tripple whacked yourself right in the nuts i'll give you some bonus points for these triple self inflicted insults as they add for some extra laughter to the world, so lets up you to 100, just 100 to go so don't stop now..... :D

Good replies DLK, Captain.
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (13) May 25, 2015
Water_Prophet the LIAR & CHEAT who should be BANNED claims
It's amazing, I just showed you that the Sun cycles ARE the most important driver of climate, something lacking in what one would laughingly call your education, and you talk to me thus?
NO, you idiot Water_Prophet you have NOT shown that.

You ignore as the delusional narrow minded low IQ person the radiative forcing of CO2
http://en.wikiped..._forcing

Which is now > 1.5W/m^2 which exceeds solar cycles & fossil fuel heat production - by FAR !

Yet Water_Prophet has NIL basis on which to challenge

Water_Prophet claims
That's not very grateful, and shows no class
This proves the staggeringly immense hypocrisy of Water_Prophet and he should be banned.

Can we all please email the admins & have the little fetus Water_Prophet banned and hope like hell he be reborn elsewhere to NOT obfuscate Science and NOT irritate the mature educated people here ?

Please ban Water_Prophet ?
Water_Prophet
1.6 / 5 (7) May 25, 2015
Utter B.S. .. first of all, the scientific consensus prior to the meeting in 2011 that produced that report was that the 11-year cycle produced minor, if any, effects on climate


That's funny, because it's been in common knowledge for years and years. Those articles I posted were from 2008, and do you really think people have been ignoring this very simple thing for over 200 years?

But, I guess it has been ignored: Rather like you don't hear your heartbeat unless you really focus on it.

And rather like your heart to your body, the Sun's changes are important to climate. The most important driver.

The amount you AGWers attribute to CO2 would cause rapid inarguable change. And I'll leave it as an exercise to prove it (you won't do it, of course). Multiply your 1.5Watts/m2 over the surface of the Earth, Notice that there are disproportionate effects in the tropics, and effects that intuitively disprove the effect over the poles, now that I think about it.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) May 25, 2015
As a corollary DLK, this 2011 thing. You know there is plenty of propaganda on the side of CO2 is not causing change. Why do you think that suddenly in 2011 there is going to be a magical study deriving consensus about the very obvious, when casual searches will bring up correlations between the "Blizzrd of '76," and them. Also note, for the record that the US was in a recession, gas was up, etc. so that in addition to a "cold Sun year(s)," there was no fossil fuel heat to keep us warm.

It's just propaganda that agrees with your side. You can prove this, people have been examining this for years, and yet you won't.

Or, have it your way, CO2 to keep us warm.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) May 25, 2015
As a corollary to the corollary, just map extreme years, 1998, 1976, etc. to Sunspot activity. If you like you can actually graph it if you like.
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (14) May 25, 2015
Water_Prophet FAILS & misses the point
And rather like your heart to your body, the Sun's changes are important to climate
Sol is driver but, its variation over Milankovitch cycles for last century is LESS than that added by CO2's radiative forcing !

Why can't you see that, what is WRONG with Water_Prophet ?

Water_Prophet claims but FAILS to understand
The amount you AGWers attribute to CO2 would cause rapid inarguable change
It is rapid in terms of geologic period BUT, too slow for most people to think ie You & you CANNOT understand it !

Work out the heat needed to melt glaciers incrementally over last 100yrs ?

Water_Prophet claims
Multiply your 1.5Watts/m2 over the surface of the Earth, Notice that there are disproportionate effects in the tropics, and effects that intuitively disprove the effect over the poles, now that I think about it.
Water_Prophet forgets it is already averaged over whole planet !

Obviously more over equator !

Physics
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (14) May 25, 2015
Water_Prophet states
As a corollary to the corollary, just map extreme years, 1998, 1976, etc. to Sunspot activity. If you like you can actually graph it if you like.
Like your other claims, its pointless as you IGNORE heat variance over sunspot cycles !

Sunspots are only a visual qualitative assessment NOT quantitative !

Given previous mis-use of the terms, you desperately need education in Physics essentials

When are you going to understand these key issues:
https://en.wikipe...transfer

http://en.wikiped..._forcing

Water_Prophet prove your claims & especially source of your CO2's figure of 0.00009W/m^2 ?

Failure to do so in concert with the well known irrefutable Physics of radiative transfer means you are clueless, a liar, a fake and you are obfuscating Science - like a bad smell you should be banned !

Prove your other claims:-
1. "4 technical degrees"
2. You are the author of "Predictive Analytics"
etc etc
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (16) May 25, 2015
Utter B.S. .. first of all, the scientific consensus prior to the meeting in 2011 that produced that report was that the 11-year cycle produced minor, if any, effects on climate


That's funny, because it's been in common knowledge for years and years.
Prove it
Those articles I posted were from 2008
No, one of them was from 2008, the other was from 2013. The one from 2008 misinterpreted what was actually written in the article it cited.
and do you really think people have been ignoring this very simple thing for over 200 years?
No, I think you are making false claims.
The amount you AGWers attribute to CO2 would cause rapid inarguable change.
Prove it.
Multiply your 1.5Watts/m2 over the surface of the Earth
Done. Now what?
Notice that there are disproportionate effects in the tropics
Prove it
and effects that intuitively disprove the effect over the poles
Prove it.
DarkLordKelvin
2.9 / 5 (15) May 25, 2015
As a corollary DLK, this 2011 thing. You know there is plenty of propaganda on the side of CO2 is not causing change. Why do you think that suddenly in 2011 there is going to be a magical study deriving consensus about the very obvious, when casual searches will bring up correlations between the "Blizzrd of '76," and them. Also note, for the record that the US was in a recession, gas was up, etc. so that in addition to a "cold Sun year(s)," there was no fossil fuel heat to keep us warm.
Incoherent, incomprehensible babble .. is there a point in there somewhere, other than a single weather event that happened to occur in a solar minimum year
It's just propaganda that agrees with your side.
There you go calling science propaganda again... in this case, you are calling the collected efforts of the National Academies of Science and Engineering "propaganda". But that's all you have .. name-calling .. because you certainly don't have evidence to support your claims.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) May 25, 2015
DuckLord,
Look at the energy distribution over the Earth, how it varies over the Earth. Although they'll be an approximate (x-delta x) ^2 factor associated with energy retention, you will get an idea of how much heat your CO2 should be retaining.

If you proved it for yourself, you would know for a fact. Why do you keep asking me to do all the math when it is you who say: I don't have the background, and that you do.

And all you do is quote my stuff, and tell me it's wrong. Mike_Masen does that, and you can see what an idiot he is.

So, on another bottom line, if you REALLY believe something as simple as the Sun's effects have not been well understood for, since long before you were born, you really are an idiot, and a gullible one.
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (16) May 25, 2015
As a corollary to the corollary, just map extreme years, 1998, 1976, etc. to Sunspot activity. If you like you can actually graph it if you like.
First, you need to define "extreme years" precisely, in scientific terms, so other people can check your assertions. Then you can construct the graph, making sure to include ALL the points, even the ones that don't fit your model ... otherwise, your confirmation bias is likely to overwhelm the data.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) May 25, 2015
And speaking of idiots: Mikey:
The Sun has an eleven year cycle:
http://en.wikiped...data.png
We're talking about Schwabe Cycles, not Milankovich Cycles, but thank's for again demonstrating not only your bias but your education.

Incidently, the wiki link you sent is actually misleading if not actually wrong.
1. Blackbody radiation under 800 or so is so flat as a function it's hardly worth talking about. Therefor IR diffusion by CO2 is approximately only ~0.5% of the thermal IR.
2. When temperature increases the amount of BB radiation always increases. The maximum shifts from IR to visible for example, but there is still more IR at T+delta than T.
3. The absorption values for the gases are normalized for equal concentrations. Therefore they do not represent the absorption in the atm.. So although water has those two bands, it's window is actually much narrower because it's concentration is so high.
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (16) May 25, 2015
Look at the energy distribution over the Earth, how it varies over the Earth.
What energy distribution? Do you mean solar irradiance?
Although they'll be an approximate (x-delta x) ^2 factor associated with energy retention, you will get an idea of how much heat your CO2 should be retaining.
No idea what you are trying to say there .. for one thing, CO2 doesn't retain heat, as I have pointed out innumerable times before.
Why do you keep asking me to do all the math
Because they are your claims, and because you never give enough detail for anyone else to do it
when it is you who say: I don't have the background, and that you do
I don't think I have ever commented on your background, or my own .. such discussions are pointless.
if you REALLY believe something as simple as the Sun's effects have not been well understood for, since long before you were born, you really are an idiot, and a gullible one.
Name-calling is a poor substitute for evidence.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) May 25, 2015
First, you need to define "extreme years" precisely,


You want me, an ignorant schmuck according to you to define something scientific terms?

Ah, DuckLord, for once I will quote you. Since even this childish exercise would prove what I am saying, and you won't do it...

Go f@#k yourself
.

DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (16) May 25, 2015
Incidently, the wiki link you sent is actually misleading if not actually wrong.
1. Blackbody radiation under 800 or so is so flat as a function it's hardly worth talking about. Therefor IR diffusion by CO2 is approximately only ~0.5% of the thermal IR.
800 what? 800 K? 800 nm? In any case, it's hard to see what you are talking about, the Planck curves are hardly "flat".
2. When temperature increases the amount of BB radiation always increases. The maximum shifts from IR to visible for example, but there is still more IR at T+delta than T.
Yay! You got something right!
3. The absorption values for the gases are normalized for equal concentrations. Therefore they do not represent the absorption in the atm.. So although water has those two bands, it's window is actually much narrower because it's concentration is so high.
Which figure(s) are you talking about there? Can you support your claim?
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (16) May 25, 2015
First, you need to define "extreme years" precisely,


You want me, an ignorant schmuck according to you to define something scientific terms?

Ah, DuckLord, for once I will quote you. Since even this childish exercise would prove what I am saying, and you won't do it...

Go f@#k yourself
.


Yep .. that's consistent behavior all right .. insults and evasion instead of engagement, once there is real science to be discussed. I think it's because you know deep down that your pathetic little gedankens will never stand up to even cursory scientific scrutiny, so every time there is a scientific point to be discussed (e.g. 33 degrees of GHE warming that you deny even exist), all you have in your repertoire is to get nasty and start deflecting attention away from your fallacies and failings. If Dunning and Kruger knew about you, they would have you bronzed for posterity.
HeloMenelo
2.4 / 5 (14) May 25, 2015
Whooohooo... atta watermonkey, you're not disapointing with the dumb comments today, watermonkey's always got evidence alright.. those he sucks out of his thumbs, and just been proved
yet again to the world by his comments, nice DLK this clown is really being played likde as ping pong ball today :D ..say where's your other clownpuppets ? we want to play with all the monkeys today :D :D
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) May 25, 2015
Thanks DLK, "it takes one to know one," is the level of your playing field. It always amazes me, you always want me to support textbook things. No, go look them up. If you don't know they're textbook thermodynamics etc., it's because, obviously I am overestimating you because of your claims.

Why do I have to educate you on basics?

HeleMenelo,
I'll give real money if you ever said anything that wasn't dumb. Just say something in any way meaningful and/or germane, and tell me a discrete way to send it, I will send you $100. Since all you skeptigoons already know who I am, you can bank on it.

And I believe you, and I believe it is meaningful, BUT ONLY to you, that you want to play with your monkey today. What I don't understand is why you want to share that with us.
HeloMenelo
2.5 / 5 (13) May 25, 2015
Yes you are our monkey on this site even though you play with your monkey before each post as we all can see judging by your comments and mountain of 1s... ;) now now you still need to graduate mental school before you can understand meaningful science and make educated comments with empirical evidence backing it up... ;) But until then... lets play :D
DarkLordKelvin
3.1 / 5 (17) May 25, 2015
Thanks DLK, "it takes one to know one," is the level of your playing field. It always amazes me, you always want me to support textbook things. No, go look them up. If you don't know they're textbook thermodynamics etc., it's because, obviously I am overestimating you because of your claims.
Another unparseable bolus of babble. If you want support for your own claims, provide it yourself ... I have always provided support for my claims .. you ignore it, but I provide it anyway.
Why do I have to educate you on basics?
You couldn't if you wanted to .. most of the time the junk you post has fundamental (i.e. basic) flaws in it that are manifest. If you think there is something fundamental that I have gotten wrong, why not be specific about it, and explain what you mean, instead of just saying something vaguely science-y like, "you don't know thermodynamics"?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) May 25, 2015
DLK, another unparsable bolus of babble.

Actually, since we been down the road quite a few times, and in the end you pull the, "you're wrong, NO wait don't look behind the curtain," routine, why don't you just ignored me like you said?

If I'm the buffoon like you say I am, science needs no defense from me.
Of course, if you a shill.

HI, helo, did I hit a nerve monkey-man? That uncharacteristic response tells the world more about you than anyone remotely wanted to know.

Those serve best who serve themselves.
:D
HeloMenelo
2.5 / 5 (11) May 26, 2015
Well sai DLK,

Yes watermonkey, you hit that laughing bellly nerve everytime you insult yourself with another post without being able to support it... and we're loving it :D
And yes my monkey we have proved all aloing that you are the bafoon we say you are ;)
DarkLordKelvin
3.1 / 5 (15) May 26, 2015
DLK, another unparsable bolus of babble.
How original.
Actually, since we been down the road quite a few times, and in the end you pull the, "you're wrong, NO wait don't look behind the curtain," routine, why don't you just ignored me like you said?
That's a bunch of baloney and you know it .. Most of what I have done here is to try to get you to look deeper into the science, or "look behind the curtain", to use your silly analogy. I have posted a slew of websites to help you understand why your claims aren't consistent with basic scientific principles, but you won't actually put any effort into reading anything new .. you just claim to know everything already, all the while making the same silly errors with fundamental physics concepts. Or is it that you HAVE read the links, and you DO realize your claims are bogus, but that you don't have the character to own up to the fact that you've been barking up the wrong tree and wasting time all these years?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) May 26, 2015
Well, DLK, were doing this in another post.

"Show me what you're doing, WP, then I criticize it and say it's wrong. But my reasoning, because of my educational superiority doesn't have to have any quantitative back-up, just arm waiving."

So then, I do the same thing and you go into a do loop, cry and whine like Helo just did. I guess having the background puts fists into arm waiving.

What do you think about him supporting his post? Someone so self-concious that... Eww he confirms it! I hope he washes his hands!

With every post we find more than we wanted to know about the Mike_Masens #1 brown noser. I wonder if it's related?
HeloMenelo
2.5 / 5 (11) May 27, 2015
Got all my friends here backing me up with 100% support, and we're having a ball :D science and emperical evidence gets you somewhere on this site, not thumb sucked opinions.. ;) DLK's last post summed it up perfectly.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) May 27, 2015
"5" helo monkey play-wither, is the new zero.

And anyone who is not in your clique, knows it.
Mike_Massen
2.2 / 5 (10) May 28, 2015
Incidentally, key issue regarding positive feedback effect of CO2 raising H2O in the atmosphere is presented extremely well Eg.
https://en.wikipe...ometrics

The FACT is water, vapour, steam etc has been very well studied for >150years and its well proven both experimentally and theoretically via Physics/Maths that water vapour precipitates out VERY quickly within mere hours once its position on Psychrometric chart changes, this graphical predictive technique is used DAILY by Food & Environmental scientists to gauge propensity for water to dew in a very wide range of environments whether outside, indoors, inside fridges, food containers etc

It is the key issue just WHY CO2 is raising Water Vapour levels as the heat load is much higher than ANY other sources, something Water_Prophet just CANNOT grasp & thus lies to gain credence.

Water_Prophet has also claimed to have "4 technical degrees" but, cannot prove it !

Physics, not idle ignorance please !
HeloMenelo
1.9 / 5 (9) May 28, 2015
"Water_Prophet has also claimed to have "4 technical degrees" but, cannot prove it !"

ooooohh.. right in the nuts... lol (again) i love it when watermonkey and his puppets try and convince themselves they are being taken seriously.... adds to the fun pokin' and everytime the world witness it.. :D atta monkey, bring gorilla and your new dongpuppet online, let's make it a 4 tier ping pong marathon... ;)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.