It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

20 new science papers find climate driven by solar changes

page: 29
94
<< 26  27  28    30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2017 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee


"empirical data and a semi-empirical model"

We already covered that issue this thread.

Semi-empirical is partially empirical relying to some extent on observation or experiment.

In other word a theory based upon research.

You do understand this is a theoretical prediction about events not just an educated guess right?

There is also this...



The incredible onslaught of the Hurricane Season of 2005, with its unparalleled number of Category 5 hurricanes--four--and the strongest hurricane ever recorded--Wilma--brought up the urgent question--how much of this was due to global warming? The remarkable Hurricane Season of 2005 coincided with the publication of two landmark papers that made a case for a connection between global warming and the strength of the most powerful hurricanes. In September 2005, a paper published in Science magazine reported that worldwide, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes had increased 80% in the past 30 years




The papers by Webster et al. and Emanuel have created considerable controversy in the hurricane science community. Many hurricane scientists disagree with the new results, and have disputed them in new papers submitted for publication. I will examine the arguments of three of these scientists here. Keep in mind that the Webster et al. paper went through peer review--it was revised based on the recommendations of at least two anonymous reviewers who read the paper before publication. The arguments of the other scientists disputing the paper have not been subject to peer review, and may have more errors or omissions than peer-reviewed work would have. The three scientists are:


www.wunderground.com...




posted on May, 28 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee


Actually it was me who posted that of you look on this page. Posted on May, 28 2017 @ 04:52 PM by Justoneman and click on my name in bold next to originally posted by Kashai a pop up come up and take you to the post.



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai




You do understand this is a theoretical prediction about events not just an educated guess right?
What is the difference? Are either both testable and falsifiable? Do they not both mean the same thing that they are both neither testable or falsifiable?



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   
nvm
edit on 28-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 05:29 PM
link   
You just cherry picked one year bro, 2005.

You accuse others of cherry picking, yet you are the worst offender. I don't even think you understand what you are posting, just a quick copy paste and a smug satisfaction having found something that refutes another poster. Sad.

Are Hurricanes up or down Kashai and can you make a connection between C02 and hurricane numbers in the first place?

Do you read any of your own links?

From your source:


1. Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point.


2. No individual tropical cyclone can be directly attributed to climate change.

3. The recent increase in societal impact from tropical cyclones has largely been caused by rising concentrations of population and infrastructure in coastal regions.

4. Tropical cyclone wind-speed monitoring has changed dramatically over the last few decades, leading to difficulties in determining accurate trends.

5. There is an observed multi-decadal variability of tropical cyclones in some regions whose causes, whether natural, anthropogenic or a combination, are currently being debated. This variability makes detecting any long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity difficult.

6. It is likely that some increase in tropical cyclone peak wind-speed and rainfall will occur if the climate continues to warm. Model studies and theory project a 3-5% increase in wind-speed per degree Celsius increase of tropical sea surface temperatures.

7. There is an inconsistency between the small changes in wind-speed projected by theory and modeling versus large changes reported by some observational studies.

8. Although recent climate model simulations project a decrease or no change in global tropical cyclone numbers in a warmer climate, there is low confidence in this projection. In addition, it is unknown how tropical cyclone tracks or areas of impact will change in the future.

9. Large regional variations exist in methods used to monitor tropical cyclones. Also, most regions have no measurements by instrumented aircraft. These significant limitations will continue to make detection of trends difficult.

10. If the projected rise in sea level due to global warming occurs, then the vulnerability to tropical cyclone storm surge flooding would increase.



From the IPCC

The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
Link

edit on 28-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee



A hypothesis is an educated guess. But take Gravity theory for example; its a theory until we know everything about the Universe in so far as gravity is concerned.

Like when the "apple" fell on his head and its alleged he had a moment of insight. That would have been the moment (proverbially), he made his educated guess as to the cause.



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: D8Tee



A hypothesis is an educated guess. But take Gravity theory for example; its a theory until we know everything about the Universe in so far as gravity is concerned.

Like when the "apple" fell on his head and its alleged he had a moment of insight. That would have been the moment (proverbially), he made his educated guess as to the cause.


Not a good comparison. Newton and the rest of us can witness numerous apples doing the exact same thing but those failed weather models do different things than predicted. THEREFORE, a theory goes to the trash heap, per Dr. Richard Feynman's explanation (and how most scientist not in 'climate' studies for the IPP look at theory). The apple theory stays in play, the Hurricane one goes back to the chalk board for more data tests.



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee


The article portends to intensity and the other article also presents this as an issue.



One study researched data between 1970 and 2004, and found that while most hurricane patterns fluctuated during that span, the number of very intense storms increased dramatically.


science.howstuffworks.com...

Source for that external quote.

science.sciencemag.org...



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: D8Tee



A hypothesis is an educated guess. But take Gravity theory for example; its a theory until we know everything about the Universe in so far as gravity is concerned.

Like when the "apple" fell on his head and its alleged he had a moment of insight. That would have been the moment (proverbially), he made his educated guess as to the cause.


Give it up bro, you've just proven you're at a grade school understanding of the scientific method and history both in one post.



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: D8Tee


Actually it was me who posted that of you look on this page. Posted on May, 28 2017 @ 04:52 PM by Justoneman and click on my name in bold next to originally posted by Kashai a pop up come up and take you to the post.
Slow down a bit, read some of the links that are presented. You have gotten to the point where you can't even remember what you yourself have posted. Come on, this isn't a google race to find who can post a link the fastest, you have to have an understanding of what you are posting or you just look foolish.



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman



It stays in place until we observe something different which is not different than in this matter.

There are always different ways of looking at pretty much anything and philosophies play a role.

As I mentioned earlier 115 million is spent per year just by US oil companies just for the purpose of claiming that Global warming is not real.

Where do you think this money is going? What about the other oil rich countries?

When one considers 1/2 to 1 billion a year spent upon and maybe even more that sets off me BS alarm.

And yes I am of that opinion.

There is a gas station not far from where I live that does not accept ATM or Credit cards for gas, due to some problem they had. There gas is actually 24 cents less that the one across the street where its ok to use a card.

Same truck delivers the gas to both stations.

I simply do not buy into the idea that this kind of effort can really be objective IMHO.



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee


You asked me this question...

"Was that my link? Can you show me where I initially posted it?"

I hope you do not mind but going to 570 post at this time is not something I can do.

I have a lot of stuff going on right now.
Not exactly a happy camper these days.
edit on 28-5-2017 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai



You asked me this question...
"Was that my link? Can you show me where I initially posted it?"

It was your link from today, you forgot you posted it, then you accused someone else of cherry picking from that source. You don't even read your own links.

Within your link it says the following:

1. Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point.


2. No individual tropical cyclone can be directly attributed to climate change.

3. The recent increase in societal impact from tropical cyclones has largely been caused by rising concentrations of population and infrastructure in coastal regions.

4. Tropical cyclone wind-speed monitoring has changed dramatically over the last few decades, leading to difficulties in determining accurate trends.

5. There is an observed multi-decadal variability of tropical cyclones in some regions whose causes, whether natural, anthropogenic or a combination, are currently being debated. This variability makes detecting any long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity difficult.

6. It is likely that some increase in tropical cyclone peak wind-speed and rainfall will occur if the climate continues to warm. Model studies and theory project a 3-5% increase in wind-speed per degree Celsius increase of tropical sea surface temperatures.

7. There is an inconsistency between the small changes in wind-speed projected by theory and modeling versus large changes reported by some observational studies.

8. Although recent climate model simulations project a decrease or no change in global tropical cyclone numbers in a warmer climate, there is low confidence in this projection. In addition, it is unknown how tropical cyclone tracks or areas of impact will change in the future.

9. Large regional variations exist in methods used to monitor tropical cyclones. Also, most regions have no measurements by instrumented aircraft. These significant limitations will continue to make detection of trends difficult.

10. If the projected rise in sea level due to global warming occurs, then the vulnerability to tropical cyclone storm surge flooding would increase.


From a peer reviewed paper:

The conclusion of the NATL 2011 hurricane season
sets a new record of days (greater than 2321 days) between
major U.S. hurricane landfalls


Link

From this thread we have seen that

1. Sea levels are not rising at an accelerated level.
2. Temperatures have not been increasing in the last 18 years.
3. There has been no statistically significant rise in the numbers of Hurricanes or Cyclones.

Even if any of them were true, there is still no direct link between that and C02 levels.




edit on 28-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Kashai



From this thread we have seen that

1. Sea levels are not rising at an accelerated level.
2. Temperatures have not been increasing in the last 18 years.
3. There has been no statistically significant rise in the numbers of Hurricanes or Cyclones.

Even if any of them were true, there is still no direct link between that and C02 levels.





And we discussed the scientific theory in a way that most here understand when a theory fails, it goes away for another theory.



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee


LOL I did not forget anything I just glanced at the response and though it was from the member and not from me.

For me anyway when I did what I explained to you I get a pop up that takes me to the post where that link is posted.

Here is a copy...



the author replied to this post:


2. Global Warming and Atlantic Hurricanes

A. Statistical relationships between SSTs and hurricanes

Observed records of Atlantic hurricane activity show some correlation, on multi-year time-scales, between local tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the Power Dissipation Index (PDI) —see for example Fig. 3 on this EPA Climate Indicators site. PDI is an aggregate measure of Atlantic hurricane activity, combining frequency, intensity, and duration of hurricanes in a single index. Both Atlantic SSTs and PDI have risen sharply since the 1970s, and there is some evidence that PDI levels in recent years are higher than in the previous active Atlantic hurricane era in the 1950s and 60s.

Model-based climate change detection/attribution studies have linked increasing tropical Atlantic SSTs to increasing greenhouse gases, but the link between increasing greenhouse gases and hurricane PDI or frequency has been based on statistical correlations. The statistical linkage of Atlantic hurricane PDI to and Atlantic SST suggests at least the possibility of a large anthropogenic influence on Atlantic hurricanes. If the correlation between tropical Atlantic SSTs and hurricane activity is used to infer future changes in Atlantic hurricane activity, the implications are sobering: the large increases in tropical Atlantic SSTs projected for the late 21st century would imply very substantial increases in hurricane destructive potential–roughly a 300% increase in the PDI by 2100 (Figure 1a).



www.gfdl.noaa.gov...


With hurricanes the matter is cut and dry the warmer the water the powerful the Hurricane. The theory is the water will get warmer hence the hurricanes will develop stronger.

Again the issue is about intensity of the storms not frequency.

Are you having trouble understanding that or are you ignoring my repeated statements to this effect.

As I said earlier this is getting silly and you are sounding a lot like a used car salesman.



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman


The theory has not failed that's also silly.

The facts are that oil companies spend 100's of million of dollars to discredit Global warming.

Why would they be spending money like that upon as you say is a failed theory?

I mean if your are correct. Doing something like that would be really dumb right?

At least to me that's common sense and to you?

What about you D8tee am I missing something or would you spend money to discredit something you were sure was false?













edit on 28-5-2017 by Kashai because: Added content

edit on 28-5-2017 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Dude, the models are failing, what part of that don't you get?




What about you D8tee am I missing something or would you spend money to discredit something you were sure was false?
Dude, how much is spent on the flip side of the coin? You are so blinded by your own cognitive bias that you are unwilling to look at anything that does not support your position on this. If you woke up tomorrow to an Ice Age you'd blame it on C02, you are simple to figure out. You're not open to facts, figures, data or research, you don't even read your own google link searches. You flood the thread with nonsense that you don't understand, cherrypick your own data and will not admit when you are wrong.

Let me guess you'll support ratifying the Paris Agreement even though you haven't read it and don't understand the first thing about it.

This is your way of saving the planet, just the kind of sheeple that the powers that be need. Continue on.







edit on 28-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee



That would be difficult to quantify, without tracking by location and coming up with a strict definition of money spent. Let me give you some examples:

China has spent a bunch of money increasing for future increases in their nuclear power program. Now this can be seen as just money for infrastructure. Or you can take the difference in the cost of the nuclear program versus coal plants and use that number. Or you can call the entirety of the effort a cost of fighting GW.

The US has been steadily increasing its use of wind power. Now this falls under the same idea of how you quantify the amount of money counted towards this venture. Clearly the US has given NASA a lot of money to research this question, but at least some of the money would have been spent anyways on just tracking the weather.

California has spent a ton of money to go "green", now clearly some of this money was spent on pollution that would cause smog (note CO2 does not cause smog).

A lot of money has been spent on the development of e-cars, but these e-cars may save people the cost of gas, so may become the standard and be worth the investment.

The worst is the money spent on biofuels, which also increases the costs of our food.

They are currently spending money to increase public transportation. This can decrease CO2 emissions and is done in an effort to decrease emissions, but it can also be viewed as an improvement to infrastructure.

There is little question that the money spent is tremendous, and pretending that all money has been blocked is absolutely absurd.




The problem with your question as detailed is that there are worldwide ongoing studies in a wide variety of earth sciences. There are earth observation satellites from a variety of nations using many different tools to learn about the earth's surface, atmosphere, and oceans. It's the earth being studied, global warming comes under observed effects. In the US, total combined budgets for DOE, NSF, and NOAA come to about $16 billion - out of a government budget of $3,518 billion.


answers.yahoo.com...

You really don't get it do you?



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

It's against terms and conditions here to quote entire articles like that. Stop it.

Can't you do anything other than copy and paste?

Your post is nothing but opinion, where are the facts, the figures, the data?

Spammer.
edit on 28-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee



Dude the money being spent by the oil companies is exclusive to the effort of denying global warming. Whereas the effort to investigate global warming is the result of technology that would be used any way. The conspiracy here is definitely not about the advocates of GM those are Scientist they do not have billions of dollars to spend upon anything.

Common sense dictates that if they have that much money blocked its because they know it will happen and quite frankly could really care less.

Is this something that is unfathomable to you or are you accusing me of doing exactly what you are doing?

Either way as far as the economics of the situation those are facts.

So do not really understand why you are accusing me of spamming and posting entire text of an link but in reality I have not.

Feel free to report what ever you want to because your not making any sense.



new topics

top topics



 
94
<< 26  27  28    30  31 >>

log in

join