Baroclinic Zone Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 You're out of line. Relax and hit the books dude. Mocking the ridiculous media hype is much different than mocking the science. Keep digging..... The media hypes all weather events. Hot/Cold/Tornados/Hurricanes/Blizzards/Droughts/Floods. I'm not sure they have a bias towards one side or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 The media hypes all weather events. Hot/Cold/Tornados/Hurricanes/Blizzards/Droughts/Floods. I'm not sure they have a bias towards one side or another. To be fair, I agree they like to over-attribute. But it's really a boogieman in the grand scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 The media hypes all weather events. Hot/Cold/Tornados/Hurricanes/Blizzards/Droughts/Floods. I'm not sure they have a bias towards one side or another. I deal with it and see it every day. The problem is that it only serves to cloud the situation. And yes it's the media like you said...what fun would it be to talk about things like quiet wx? Humans love visual stimulation and images to really bring things home. When the clown on CNN said "we will see more of this with climate change" referring to the flying semis in Dallas last year...that was one of the most irresponsible comments I've ever heard. It's an upper level low over TX in April. Of course there will be tornadoes. Because it hits a major metro area...somehow that makes it worse. If I said we as humans haven't changed a thing...then you can have my degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 People who haven't studied climate science a day in their lives have the audacity to mock those whose field of research is devoted to it. The new America, where all opinions are equal. We had people linking Jeff Masters from wunderground during the 2011 Spring Tornado Outbreaks because it was his own opinion that AGW was a big influence yet there wasn't any scientific papers out there to support that opinion. He isn't a climatologist, but people read him and post about it...on this site. Why? Well, he is a very smart scientist in a related field. He probably has some solid understanding of the climatology of tornadoes. It didn't mean he was correct (and many other experts in tornado climo disagreed with him), but his opinion was probably just as valid if not more valid as some climate scientist who has very limited knowledge in tornado climatology. When climate science starts roaming into the field of attribution, then it becomes quite hazy on who actually has more knowledge. Chuck Doswell probably knows more about tornado climatology than anyone alive, but he is not a "climate scientist". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 why cant SNE keep their fights in their own subforum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 We had people linking Jeff Masters from wunderground during the 2011 Spring Tornado Outbreaks because it was his own opinion that AGW was a big influence yet there wasn't any scientific papers out there to support that opinion. He isn't a climatologist, but people read him and post about it...on this site. Why? Well, he is a very smart scientist in a related field. He probably has some solid understanding of the climatology of tornadoes. It didn't mean he was correct (and many other experts in tornado climo disagreed with him), but his opinion was probably just as valid if not more valid as some climate scientist who has very limited knowledge in tornado climatology. When climate science starts roaming into the field of attribution, then it becomes quite hazy on who actually has more knowledge. Chuck Doswell probably knows more about tornado climatology than anyone alive, but he is not a "climate scientist". The main thing that I take from AGW is that more extremes are likely as the world warms. I think it's rather complicated when talking about singular weather phenomenon like hurricanes and tornadoes, but hopefully we will garner better understanding on that going forward. AGW is kinda like the brain, just because we don't know everything about it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or it won't affect our world going forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 why cant SNE keep their fights in their own subforum? because I'm boycotting the SNE subforum...and because it's about AGW...I started the thread here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 why cant SNE keep their fights in their own subforum? I don't know why this thread was even posted, but I'm not going to stand by and have someone unfairly and indirectly call me out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 The main thing that I take from AGW is that more extremes are likely as the world warms. I think it's rather complicated when talking about singular weather phenomenon like hurricanes and tornadoes, but hopefully we will garner better understanding on that going forward. AGW is kinda like the brain, just because we don't know everything about it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or it won't affect our world going forward. You answered your own question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 You answered your own question. because it's complicated do we mock those who study it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baroclinic Zone Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 You answered your own question. Correct, and those that deny it are ignorant(not talking about you). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 The same thing happened when a few of us mets said the GFS hasn't done well with synoptic storm details for SNE this winter. It somehow got turned into all of the SNE forum and the mets bashing the GFS as a whole...especially when one or two weenies out of hundreds mentioned the GFS "sucking." I don't know why things get taken out of context...if you are unsure of an opinion..ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 I damn well know that If I posted an article about AGW in that subforum it would be mocked, no doubt in my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 I damn well know that If I posted an article about AGW in that subforum it would be mocked, no doubt in my mind. thats bc most people in that subforum cant stand you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 I don't know why this thread was even posted, but I'm not going to stand by and have someone unfairly and indirectly call me out. I can understand it from ginx and kevin, but I was really getting the impression you were a denier because the only time you even breech the subject is to mock the media or a "controversial" article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 because it's complicated do we mock those who study it? No we question those making a direct link to a single busy tornado season..or a snowy winter, to climate change. My whole thing this morning was about the media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 thats bc most people in that subforum cant stand you too ****ing bad. and the AGW thing goes beyond me lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 There's 3 mets who won't post in that subforum because of the nonsense, so it really isn't just about me, katie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 I can understand it from ginx and kevin, but I was really getting the impression you were a denier because the only time you even breech the subject is to mock the media or a "controversial" article. Nick, I don't post much in here...but I've certainly have had discos with others. Unfortunately, questioning a AGW related article that has a bit of a stretch automatically lables you a denier. I've said multiple times that I'm not a denier...but I certainly try to weed out some of the very extreme alarmists view. I have a big issue with how the science is portrayed by mainstream media and even some scientists. I don't have an issue with people having opinions one way or the other...but I think even you have to agree it can get out of control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 There's 3 mets who won't post in that subforum because of the nonsense, so it really isn't just about me, katie. obvious trolling isn't quite that obvious, is it nick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Nick it's all good...I just wanted to be clear. No worries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 was it Chad who said that on CNN? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baroclinic Zone Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Nick it's all good...I just wanted to be clear. No worries. A little civil debate is all good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 Nick it's all good...I just wanted to be clear. No worries. okay I'm sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 at least i have, ginx shocking that someone can think that in the face of all the evidence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamarack Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Kinda surprised at all the heat this thread has generated, also about someone from one subforum so emphatically ripping folks from another, though I'm glad to see that civility has apparently won out. (Nitpick: On my anwx homepage, I don't find a "SNE forum"; the folks from CT/MA/RI are nice enough to include the tiny minority from farther north.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 I damn well know that If I posted an article about AGW in that subforum it would be mocked, no doubt in my mind. It might deserve it if it was a crappy article. Not all articles are created equal...some (that get posted around here) aren't even peer reviewed and just opinion pieces. I think people making fun of media sensationalism can easily get mistaken for someone mocking robust science. When someone says "I'm sure we'll see it blamed on global warming on CNN tonight"....that is clearly mocking sensationlist media think. There's nothing wrong with a little bit of levity in an otherwise serious world we live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Love of cold/snow? Sure, some of the offenders will claim to not be deniers, but when the only time the subject is breached is in a mocking way, you begin to wonder about the motives. In the Lakes/Ohio Valley forum you will get destroyed by an army of posters if you talk about AGW at all. The same people who have bullied any talk of AGW off the other boards. Hell, it took the incredible diplomatic posts by Don Sutherland so that the analog adjustments could be discussed. Even though it's obviously common sense using an analog from a time when the NH land regions were 1.5C cooler or so or even more have to be adjusted for the warming. Even the 1981-2010 climo is bias for to cool since major warming was post mid 90s. On a local weather blog I frequent 95 percent of the people there blame this all on natural cycles and believe a return to pre 1990s or even 1980s cold is on it's way when it flips back. They do two things, two things that are typical of the people who mock it on here. 1. They love snow/winter weather like crack. 2. They don't actually back denying AGW and saying it's natural cycles. It's like accepted as truth. Obviously that is not everyone, many of us do not know exactly how our winter wonderlands will change as the Earth keeps going into winter with more heat. But it is no reason to dismiss the work of a dozen fields of Science and tends of thousands of well educated hard working people based on nothing but I believe it's crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amped Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 It might deserve it if it was a crappy article. Not all articles are created equal...some (that get posted around here) aren't even peer reviewed and just opinion pieces. I think people making fun of media sensationalism can easily get mistaken for someone mocking robust science. When someone says "I'm sure we'll see it blamed on global warming on CNN tonight"....that is clearly mocking sensationlist media think. There's nothing wrong with a little bit of levity in an otherwise serious world we live in. Well said, we are seeing a lot fewer people actually directly mocking the science around here than we were a few years back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted May 3, 2013 Share Posted May 3, 2013 In the Lakes/Ohio Valley forum you will get destroyed by an army of posters if you talk about AGW at all. The same people who have bullied any talk of AGW off the other boards. Hell, it took the incredible diplomatic posts by Don Sutherland so that the analog adjustments could be discussed. Even though it's obviously common sense using an analog from a time when the NH land regions were 1.5C cooler or so or even more have to be adjusted for the warming. Even the 1981-2010 climo is bias for to cool since major warming was post mid 90s. For when? Summers have continued to stay very warm recently but using winter analogs (when most on this board are really forecasting) has shown a significant decline in temperatures over a vast portion of the CONUS since the North Pacific flip in 2007 and have averaged well below the 1981-2010 mean. Winters in the northeast have remained mild compared to the 1981-2010 mean, but they are just a small portion of the country. Other areas in the middle latitudes have actually seen much colder winters in the past decade versus the 1990s: And huge portions of Asia even vs just the 1980s: There's both huge natural variability at work and some responses to AGW that obviously do not keep everyone warming...well into the decadal scale. I think denying this or turning a blind eye to this is no better than someone who pretends there is no AGW at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.