skierinvermont Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Want to summarize the argument in 8 sentences or less for me? I am done reading your long C&P posts from bloggers and pseudo-scientists that are full of misinformation and errors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Want to summarize the argument in 8 sentences or less for me? I am done reading your long C&P posts from bloggers that are full of misinformation and errors. Errors, like what? Back youself up with proof. Better yet, why don't you explain what is being said, loud n clear for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Errors, like what? Back youself up with proof. Better yet, why don't you explain what is being said, loud n clear for us. I have debunked several of your long cut and paste posts over on Eastern. I'm not doing it again. You can summarize in 8 sentences or less and I will respond.. otherwise I am not wasting my time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 I have debunked several of your long cut and paste posts over on Eastern. I'm not doing it again. You can summarize in 8 sentences or less and I will respond.. otherwise I am not wasting my time. You haven't debunked sh*t Skier.... Oh wait, you HAVE debunked me yeah, you sure proved me wrong. Since you have time to argue AGW at 1AM wind hansen funding,you can write me up your proof with all your VAST knowledge and experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 You haven't debunked sh*t Skier.... Oh wait, you HAVE debunked me yeah, you sure proved me wrong Yeah that was making fun of a graph you posted which looked like it was drawn by a 4th grader as a serious source. It was a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Yeah that was making fun of a graph you posted drawn by a 4th grader as a serious source. It was a joke. More lies to cover your denial, I see? You don't even understand how to make a Map skier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 More lies to cover your denial, I see? You don't even understand how to make a Map skier. Do you know what a joke is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Do you know what a joke is? No comprehension skills either, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hambone Posted December 4, 2010 Author Share Posted December 4, 2010 National Geographic is left wing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoRyz Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 I deleted several posts in this thread as they violate our Fair Use Policy. Please read it here: http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php?app=custompages&do=show&pageId=3 You can also find a link to it in the upper right corner, next to Forum Rules. Anyone else who violates our Fair Use Policy will get a warning, which comes with an automatic 5 post per day maximum. Thanks for your cooperation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aslkahuna Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Just as an aside, I remember posting on Eastern some time back reference to studies that indicated that GW (regardless of cause) could in fact result in fewer Tropical Cyclones but a higher percentage of intense ones. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Just as an aside, I remember posting on Eastern some time back reference to studies that indicated that GW (regardless of cause) could in fact result in fewer Tropical Cyclones but a higher percentage of intense ones. Steve Yes that is the growing consensus these days. Slightly fewer TCs, slightly more intense ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Yes that is the growing consensus these days. Slightly fewer TCs, slightly more intense ones. Its not a growing consensus, its an idea being thrown around. And, if it is, that means the IPCC and their ideas in TC activity have been wrong all this time...... Either way, intensity has been down. Meanwhile, Colder & snowier winters have become the norm recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Its not a growing consensus, its an idea being thrown around. And, if it is, that means the IPCC and their ideas in TC activity have been wrong all this time...... Either way, intensity has been down. Meanwhile, Colder & snowier winters have become the norm recently. Intensity has not been down. Max intensity has been up over the long term. The idea that TC frequency will decrease but max intensity increase is endorsed by the American Meteorological Organization and most researchers in the field. I call that a consensus.. if you want to call it something else that is fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Intensity has not been down. Max intensity has been up over the long term. The idea that TC frequency will decrease but max intensity increase is endorsed by the American Meteorological Organization and most researchers in the field. I call that a consensus.. if you want to call it something else that is fine. "consensus" is when the vast majority is on strong agreement. The IPCC obviously is not in agreement, and largely the scientific community is also not. That doesn't seem like "consensus" to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 "consensus" is when the vast majority is on strong agreement. The IPCC obviously is not in agreement, and largely the scientific community is also not. That doesn't seem like "consensus" to me. The IPCC DID say that the most reliable high resolution modeling indicated an increase in peak intensity and a decrease in frequency. There have been several studies done since then confirming this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 The IPCC DID say that the most reliable high resolution modeling indicated an increase in peak intensity and a decrease in frequency. There have been several studies done since then confirming this. source? If true, they'be Botched their 2007 report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 source? If true, they'be Botched their 2007 report. No. The 2007 report says the exact same thing. "Higher resolution models that more credibly simulate tropical cyclones predict some consistent increase in peak wind intensity... There is also a less certain possibility of a decrease in the number of weak tropical cyclones" IPCC 2007. How can IPCC 2007 contradict IPCC 2007? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 No. The 2007 report says the exact same thing. "Higher resolution models that more credibly simulate tropical cyclones predict some consistent increase in peak wind intensity... There is also a less certain possibility of a decrease in the number of weak tropical cyclones" IPCC 2007. How can IPCC 2007 contradict IPCC 2007? "A less certain possibility"... How is that CONCENSUS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 "A less certain possibility"... How is that CONCENSUS? They are acknowledging the uncertainty. There have been several studies since then which have reaffirmed this prediction. Hence my use of the phrase "growing consensus." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 They are acknowledging the uncertainty. There have been several studies since then which have reaffirmed this prediction. Hence my use of the phrase "growing consensus." "Growing recognition of the possibility of....." would be a better choice of words rather than "concensus". There is no "consensus" until a majory agreement has been reached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 "Growing recognition of the possibility of....." would be a better choice of words rather than "concensus". There is no "consensus" until a majory agreement has been reached. There is majority agreement that the most likely effect of warming would be higher peak intensity and lower frequency. Nearly everybody agrees this is the most likely scenario. Hence "consensus." There is also a consensus that there is a lot of uncertainty. I wasn't saying that everybody agreed that X was definitely going to happen. More like "most people agree X is the most likely possibility but there is a lot of uncertainty." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 There is majority agreement that the most likely effect of warming would be higher peak intensity and lower frequency. Nearly everybody agrees this is the most likely scenario. Hence "consensus." There is also a consensus that there is a lot of uncertainty. I wasn't saying that everybody agreed that X was definitely going to happen. More like "most people agree X is the most likely possibility but there is a lot of uncertainty." You take something and change it around. They stated "The less Certain Possibility of Less WEAK cyclones"........More frequent stronger cyclones, Same amount of middle road, and Less weak.... No change. They said Nothing about "overall cyclone #'s going down". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 You take something and change it around. They stated "The less Certain Possibility of Less WEAK cyclones"........More frequent stronger cyclones, Same amount of middle road, and Less weak.... No change. They said Nothing about "overall cyclone #'s going down". Wrong... "... and a global decrease in the number of tropical cyclones." IPCC 2007 It's the last concluding sentence of the section on hurricanes. Chapter 10.3.6.3 . You need to be more careful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 hehehe, why don't you post the entire section. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 hehehe, why don't you post the entire section. because then I have to manually retype everything from the PDF. Paraphrasing it says the most reliable models say an increase in peak intensity and a decrease in overall frequency. Don't believe me.. IPCC 2007 10.3.6.3 last paragraph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 because then I have to manually retype everything from the PDF. Paraphrasing it says the most reliable models say an increase in peak intensity and a decrease in overall frequency. Don't believe me.. IPCC 2007 10.3.6.3 last paragraph. You miss the point. "Consensus" means "agreement from a group as a whole, completely". Even the Climate Change community is split on the issue..... maybe MODEL consensus is increasing.... but not human...............and we know how well climate models have done (LOLZ) definition for "consensus" http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/consensus.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 You didn't read skier... you hit post 5 seconds after I posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 You miss the point. "Consensus" means "agreement from a group as a whole, completely". Even the Climate Change community is split on the issue..... maybe MODEL consensus is increasing.... but not human...............and we know how well climate models have done (LOLZ) definition for "consensus" http://www.audioengl...y/consensus.htm Nice change of topic from yet another one of your epic fails. There is a consensus that TC peak intensity will increase but frequency of TCs will decrease. There is a lot of uncertainty, but this is widely regarded as the most likely outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Nice change of topic from yet another one of your epic fails. There is a consensus that TC peak intensity will increase but frequency of TCs will decrease. There is a lot of uncertainty, but this is widely regarded as the most likely outcome. So then why all this worry about hurricanes? If overall activity is going down and will continue to go down, won't that be more important than a few more intense storms every couple of years? The last few hurricane seasons have been total duds anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.