the first time in history that four named storms have formed before July 1

[Vergent]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/23/us/tropical-weather/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

[PhillipS]

http://www.cnn.com/2...rss_igoogle_cnn

Well, we both started new threads based on TS Debby - the old saying must be true about "Great minds blah, blah, blah".

[SVT450R]

Yup this proves AGW.

[Sundog]

Yup this proves AGW.

I bet nothing ever will for you, though I'm not saying this unprecedented tropical event is in fact evidence. Curious, what would need to happen for you to be say, "wow AGW is the real deal?"

[SVT450R]

I bet nothing ever will for you, though I'm not saying this unprecedented tropical event is in fact evidence. Curious, what would need to happen for you to be say, "wow AGW is the real deal?"

I don't doubt that CO2 is playing a role in climate change i only disagree with the percentage that it plays. Ive stated a few times my stance on it if we continue to see a large rate of warming in the next 20-30 years then i will believe that it plays a major role. Now if we continue to see the slowed warming that has been going on the past decade or it started to cool and it continued next 20-30 years would you not change your stance on the percentage it plays.

[Snow_Miser]

I bet nothing ever will for you, though I'm not saying this unprecedented tropical event is in fact evidence. Curious, what would need to happen for you to be say, "wow AGW is the real deal?"

Basic observational evidence.

[Sundog]

Basic observational evidence.

If that's the only way you take something as being fact then there's a lot of science you don't agree with. Ever heard of proxy data for example?

And again I'm not saying that what you ask for is not a valid request. It's just that no matter what the observations may be you will chalk it up to natural variability. If you think AGW is BS, that is.

[Derecho!]

This clearly is of unbelievabie significance because tropical cyclones have been named for .000045% of the history of the existence of the Atlantic Ocean.

I'm sure it never happened between 130 million years BC and 1953.

[Sundog]

This clearly is of unbelievabie significance because tropical cyclones have been named for .000045% of the history of the existence of the Atlantic Ocean.

I'm sure it never happened between 130 million years BC and 1953.

Yup. And I bet that at one point we even saw tropical systems during the winter months back then too, which obviously means that getting a hurricane in January is perfectly normal.

[Snow_Miser]

If that's the only way you take something as being fact then there's a lot of science you don't agree with. Ever heard of proxy data for example?

And again I'm not saying that what you ask for is not a valid request. It's just that no matter what the observations may be you will chalk it up to natural variability. If you think AGW is BS, that is.

There are zero observations that support AGW as being the dominant forcing over the last 150 or even over the last 30 years. There is, however enormous amounts of evidence that there is a strong, dominant, natural component. The evidence, or lack of evidence for AGW will present itself in the coming years, as the quiet sun is fully equilibriated in the oceans. Depending on how the climate responds to the quiet sun will determine how much of an impact the sun is having.

Proxy data does not confirm AGW... there are many independent local reconstructions that show very variable temperatures over the last 1000 or so years with nearly all of them showing that the MWP was either Warmer or about the same temperature as the CWP.

[PhillipS]

There are zero observations that support AGW as being the dominant forcing over the last 150 or even over the last 30 years. There is, however enormous amounts of evidence that there is a strong, dominant, natural component. The evidence, or lack of evidence for AGW will present itself in the coming years, as the quiet sun is fully equilibriated in the oceans. Depending on how the climate responds to the quiet sun will determine how much of an impact the sun is having.

Proxy data does not confirm AGW... there are many independent local reconstructions that show very variable temperatures over the last 1000 or so years with nearly all of them showing that the MWP was either Warmer or about the same temperature as the CWP.

You are simply wrong - your willful ignorance and rejection of solidly established research does not equate to there being zero observations corroborating AGW. And your endlessly reposting thoroughly debunked garbage about the MWP wil never make it credible.

And, to close, your desperation is showing when you post things like "lack of evidence for AGW will present itself in the coming years" - you are like a losing sports fan shouting "Wait 'til next year!" and it's an admission that the data today doesn't support your nonsense. There are more than 150 years of direct observations in a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines supporting mainstream AGW, and proxy data going back thousands of years. Your tinhat junkscience will have to explain all of that better than AGW does before it has any credibility.

[Vergent]

Basic observational evidence.

Here is 800,000 years of observational evidence. High GHG corresponds perfectly with a warmer planet, low GHG with a cooler planet. In the last 100 years GHG have spiked to levels that have not occurred in the last million years. Humans have been burning billions of tons of fossil fuel, putting CO2 in the atmosphere. The elevated GHG is causing the ice to melt and the planet to warm. This is human caused global warming.

[dabize]

Here is 800,000 years of observational evidence. High GHG corresponds perfectly with a warmer planet, low GHG with a cooler planet. In the last 100 years GHG have spiked to levels that have not occurred in the last million years. Humans have been burning billions of tons of fossil fuel, putting CO2 in the atmosphere. The elevated GHG is causing the ice to melt and the planet to warm. This is human caused global warming.

A well executed stick check with a very real hockey stick

[cyclonebuster]

More heat more potential for this to occur in the near future thanks to GHG's. Today's oddities are tomorrows reality..........

[Snow_Miser]

Here is 800,000 years of observational evidence. High GHG corresponds perfectly with a warmer planet, low GHG with a cooler planet. In the last 100 years GHG have spiked to levels that have not occurred in the last million years. Humans have been burning billions of tons of fossil fuel, putting CO2 in the atmosphere. The elevated GHG is causing the ice to melt and the planet to warm. This is human caused global warming.

http://www.nature.co...s/408698a0.html

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are believed to drive climate changes from glacial to interglacial modes¹, although geological^1,2,3 and astronomical^4,5,6 mechanisms have been invoked as ultimate causes. Additionally, it is unclear^7,8 whether the changes between cold and warm modes should be regarded as a global phenomenon, affecting tropical and high-latitude temperatures alike^{9,10,11,12,13}, or if they are better described as an expansion and contraction of the latitudinal climate zones, keeping equatorial temperatures approximately constant^14,15,16. Here we present a reconstruction of tropical sea surface temperatures throughout the Phanerozoic eon (the past 550 Myr) from our database¹⁷ of oxygen isotopes in calcite and aragonite shells. The data indicate large oscillations of tropical sea surface temperatures in phase with the cold–warm cycles, thus favouring the idea of climate variability as a global phenomenon. But our data conflict with a temperature reconstruction using an energy balance model that is forced by reconstructed atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations¹⁸. The results can be reconciled if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were not the principal driver of climate variability on geological timescales for at least one-third of the Phanerozoic eon, or if the reconstructed carbon dioxide concentrations are not reliable.

Solar activity variations can account for 70% of the variations in temperature over the last 400 or so years.

Source: Scafetta and West 2007

[Snow_Miser]

You are simply wrong - your willful ignorance and rejection of solidly established research does not equate to there being zero observations corroborating AGW. And your endlessly reposting thoroughly debunked garbage about the MWP wil never make it credible.

And, to close, your desperation is showing when you post things like "lack of evidence for AGW will present itself in the coming years" - you are like a losing sports fan shouting "Wait 'til next year!" and it's an admission that the data today doesn't support your nonsense. There are more than 150 years of direct observations in a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines supporting mainstream AGW, and proxy data going back thousands of years. Your tinhat junkscience will have to explain all of that better than AGW does before it has any credibility.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong all of the time?

The beginning sentence of your second paragraph is not at all analogous.

Provide me evidence that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the dominant driver of the warming over the last 150 years.

[PhillipS]

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong all of the time?

The beginning sentence of your second paragraph is not at all analogous.

Provide me evidence that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the dominant driver of the warming over the last 150 years.

Egad - colorful charts with no sources provided! That's Kryptonite to mainstream AGW! Who needs peer-reviewed research when you can just use excel!

[Snow_Miser]

Egad - colorful charts with no sources provided! That's Kryptonite to mainstream AGW! Who needs peer-reviewed research when you can just use excel!

The charts ARE a compilation of peer reviewed papers documenting a MWP, and nearly all show that the CWP was as warm or warmer than the CWP.

[cmc0605]

Phillip is right. This is probably from co2science or some similar source. I've seen it before. Of course, you actually need to skim through most of the papers to realize you're being duped. In very few cases can you make an actual comparison. The dates might be off, some of the older studies don't even include the CWP, it might be regional, or the study might be looking at a glacier somewhere in the world that exists now that might didn't exist 1,000 years ago, and the graph would include that as a "warmer MWP." There's no uncertainties, which most studies actually report in reconstructions. It's silliness.

I would ignore Snowlover unless he gives some attempt to cite credible sources and show that he actually looked at them, otherwise you are in store for a lot of games and going in circles.

[Snow_Miser]

snowlover123 is either a bethesdaboy sock or one of his fellow travellers. he never has anything sincere to add to any thread.

That's ironic, considering EVERY single one of your posts to skeptics on this forum is either a copy and paste of an article from Skeptical Science or an accusation that they are someone that they are not.

[Snow_Miser]

I would ignore Snowlover unless he gives some attempt to cite credible sources and show that he actually looked at them, otherwise you are in store for a lot of games and going in circles.

Yeah, let's ignore all of the reconstructions documenting a MWP and then claim that the Hockey Stick is a better reconstruction without any supporting evidence.

Typical closed-minded response.

[Snow_Miser]

I keep hoping eventually people repeating talking points will avail themselves of that easy to use reference site and stop posting debunked denier talking points.

What are "debunked denier talking points?"

Better yet, what is a "denier?"

[smerby]

I bet nothing ever will for you, though I'm not saying this unprecedented tropical event is in fact evidence. Curious, what would need to happen for you to be say, "wow AGW is the real deal?"

If Global temperatures warm through the current Pacfic cooling and subsequent Atlantic cooling cycles over the next 15-20 years, I will be convinced that C02 is a big player.

Smerby

[cyclonebuster]

If Global temperatures warm through the current Pacfic cooling and subsequent Atlantic cooling cycles over the next 15-20 years, I will be convinced that C02 is a big player.

Smerby

What if summertime Northern Arctic Ice melts out by then? Would that be a game changer for you?

[Snow_Miser]

If Global temperatures warm through the current Pacfic cooling and subsequent Atlantic cooling cycles over the next 15-20 years, I will be convinced that C02 is a big player.

Smerby

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Considering that the sun is also going into a quiet state as well.

[SVT450R]

That's ironic, considering EVERY single one of your posts to skeptics on this forum is either a copy and paste of an article from Skeptical Science or an accusation that they are someone that they are not.

+1

[aslkahuna]

First off, the naming of Tropical cyclones goes back to only 1950 so the fact that we have the first 4 named before July 1st is not overly significant one way or another. Secondly, since the start of the satellite era in the 1970's, systems that would not have been named otherwise are now being named as we have much better data available on them so we have an improvement in detection and recon abilities contributing much to this. Finally, what goes on in the Atlantic has for the most part NOT been duplicated globally as we have seen a net decrease in global activity not an increase. Bottom line, the fact that we've had the first 4 named storms in the ATL before July 1st makes for good headlines to impress the general public but says nothing one way or another about the effects of AGW upon the frequency of Tropical Cyclones. On the other hand, considering the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere due to human activity it is foolhardy to dismiss our role in the current warming.

Steve

[ORH_wxman]

First off, the naming of Tropical cyclones goes back to only 1950 so the fact that we have the first 4 named before July 1st is not overly significant one way or another. Secondly, since the start of the satellite era in the 1970's, systems that would not have been named otherwise are now being named as we have much better data available on them so we have an improvement in detection and recon abilities contributing much to this. Finally, what goes on in the Atlantic has for the most part NOT been duplicated globally as we have seen a net decrease in global activity not an increase. Bottom line, the fact that we've had the first 4 named storms in the ATL before July 1st makes for good headlines to impress the general public but says nothing one way or another about the effects of AGW upon the frequency of Tropical Cyclones. On the other hand, considering the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere due to human activity it is foolhardy to dismiss our role in the current warming.

Steve

I've usually posted this link in most of these types of threads, but it usually gets ignored and people will speculate with the glamarous headlines and another thread like this pops up in short time.

http://www.aoml.noaa...anes/index.html

[cmc0605]

I do not really follow this field, but I can say that the upcoming AR5 assessment report has backed off somewhat with some of the AR4 conclusions regarding tropical cyclones. The data quality issue mentioned above, particularly in the earlier part of the record, is a major issue, and there is no agreement for how to best account for undercounts in the earlier part of the record. Attempts to account for this leave little or no trend (see e.g., Vecchi and Knutson, 2010) though this is controversial. So there is no robust evidence for a significant trend in the frequency of tropical cyclones; there is evidence for some increases in the intensity of tropical cyclones since the 1970s, but the record is short and uncertainties large (intensity is even tougher than genesis, since you need some measure of it over the lifetime of the cyclone, as opposed to just identifying it as existing). The following is a good review paper

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n3/abs/ngeo779.html

Isaac Held also a has a good blog post on this, highlighting some of the dynamics that go beyond local SST (Kerry Emanuel has a response in the comments too..if nothing else, this perhaps serves as a useful proxy for the tone and type of discussion scientists have. Compare this with "AGW is all wrong" type remarks)

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/2011/05/11/10-atlantic-hurricanes-and-differential-tropical-warming/

[ORH_wxman]

I do not really follow this field, but I can say that the upcoming AR5 assessment report has backed off somewhat with some of the AR4 conclusions regarding tropical cyclones. The data quality issue mentioned above, particularly in the earlier part of the record, is a major issue, and there is no agreement for how to best account for undercounts in the earlier part of the record. Attempts to account for this leave little or no trend (see e.g., Vecchi and Knutson, 2010) though this is controversial. So there is no robust evidence for a significant trend in the frequency of tropical cyclones; there is evidence for some increases in the intensity of tropical cyclones since the 1970s, but the record is short and uncertainties large (intensity is even tougher than genesis, since you need some measure of it over the lifetime of the cyclone, as opposed to just identifying it as existing). The following is a good review paper

http://www.nature.co...bs/ngeo779.html

Isaac Held also a has a good blog post on this, highlighting some of the dynamics that go beyond local SST (Kerry Emanuel has a response in the comments too..if nothing else, this perhaps serves as a useful proxy for the tone and type of discussion scientists have. Compare this with "AGW is all wrong" type remarks)

http://www.gfdl.noaa...opical-warming/

Most of the skeptic debate lies within this realm of uncertainty. Many very inconsiderate people on here view a "skeptic" as a "denier" and then actual people who deny global warming at all on any level get into heated debate with these people and it derails most threads and then a bunch of relatively irrelevant tangential points are argued.

The real debate lies with Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming versus the less threatening Anthropogenic Global Warming, but since the two have often been meshed together, it kind of turns into an "AGW vs nothing" debate which isn't where most of the debate lies in the first place in peer reviewed science.

I am a skeptic of the former, not the latter. I believe AGW exists, but not on the catastrophic scale that a lot of the IPCC scientists believe. There is more and more peer reviewed literature that comes out now that supports that thinking which is why the debate has heated up since 2005, but it is still in the minority amongst all peer reviewed literature. These types of threads are usually what often cause the problems and this occurs on both sides of the spectrum.