Global Warming and Extreme Weather Effects

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Dingo, Sep 20, 2016.

  1. Dingo

    Dingo New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,529
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    One of the results of global warming is supposed to be the increase in extreme weather events. The NWF (National Wildlife Federation) lays it out.

    http://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Threats...lobal-Warming-is-Causing-Extreme-Weather.aspx

    Is that what we see happening? You tell me.
     
  2. Befuddled Alien

    Befuddled Alien Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I would say that you should be very careful getting science information from news sources. You should also be very careful getting science from organizations with an agenda. That said, the NWF is both of those so definitely take anything that they say with a grain or 10 of salt.

    While I haven't looked into their specific claims in the linked articles I can say that it bothers me that they have a "Global Warming Scientist" (Yes, in quotes). It also bothers me that there is no sourcing for any of their sections, or links to scientific papers ... just assertions. What bothers me most however, is that the liberal side will point to things written there and believe that the science supports it and the conservative side will look at what is written and mistrust science because of it. Both will be wrong.
     
  3. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,611
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Absurd. There is no correlation or causation. Even the IPCC agrees with that assessement.

    Source "The Rightful Place of Science - Disasters and Climate Change" - Roger Pielke Jr. - 2014
     
  4. Dingo

    Dingo New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,529
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I simply used the site as a jump off for a discussion. If you have any links show some integrity and make the case one way or another instead of complaining about their lack of acceptable sources. Where are yours?

    In the case of AFM no point in replying. He plays the pseudo scientist but will never, never, never supply a link for anything he says. Standard denialist strategy.
     
  5. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    30,071
    Likes Received:
    1,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Thunderstorms seem to be more severe...
    :omg:
    ... and the growing season seems to be longer...
    :confusion:
    ... than what I remember growing up.
    :cool:
     
  6. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,611
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I provide book titles. The curious and committed will read books (with their references, footnotes, and indices) and not rely on the internet as the basis for information. Personal attacks and insults are the standard alarmist tactics. There is a lot of that around here.
     
  7. Befuddled Alien

    Befuddled Alien Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Noted. I did not mean to imply otherwise. The only thing that I was pointing out was the dangers of getting science info from dubious sources. It tends to have various filters applied to it and may or may not be reliable.

    I do not need to provide any links. I have made no factual claims. (Other than the claim that both sides of the argument will be wrong when they use this source to make claims about science and that is more of a prognostication than a claim)

    They may have great sources. The problem is that they don't list them. This makes their claims just assertions.

    My sources for what?

    Agreed. Providing a link to a book and saying "go find and buy and read this" is a pretty poor way to make an argument.

    The link between global warming and extreme weather is definitely starting to be seen in the scientific literature. For example:

    Pall et al. (2011):
    "Here we present a multi-step, physically based ‘probabilistic event attribution’ framework showing that it is very likely that global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions substantially increased the risk of flood occurrence in England and Wales in autumn 2000"​
    Min et al. (2011):
    "Here we show that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases have contributed to the observed intensification of heavy precipitation events found over approximately two-thirds of data-covered parts of Northern Hemisphere land areas."​
    Dai et al. (2011):
    "All the four forms of the PDSI show widespread drying over Africa, East and South Asia, and other areas from 1950 to 2008, and most of this drying is due to recent warming. The global percentage of dry areas has increased by about 1.74% (of global land area) per decade from 1950 to 2008."​
    Zwiers et al. (2011):
    "Therefore, it is concluded that the influence of anthropogenic forcing has had a detectable influence on extreme temperatures that have impacts on human society and natural systems at global and regional scales"
    Coumou & Rahmstorf (2012):
    "Here, we review the evidence and argue that for some types of extreme — notably heatwaves, but also precipitation extremes — there is now strong evidence linking specific events or an increase in their numbers to the human influence on climate. For other types of extreme, such as storms, the available evidence is less conclusive, but based on observed trends and basic physical concepts it is nevertheless plausible to expect an increase."​

     
    Gaius_Marius likes this.
  8. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,611
    Trophy Points:
    113
    These papers are all opinion and predictions based on models. The book from Pielke Jr. is based on facts with concurrence from the IPCC. Do the homework if you are interested. I'm not interested in persuading anyone with preconceptions but I will offer references which negate those preconceptions which can be utilized by those with initiative and curiosity and the desire to challenge their own preconceptions. I've been through this all before on other forums.
     
  9. TRFjr

    TRFjr Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Messages:
    17,331
    Likes Received:
    8,800
    Trophy Points:
    113
    what was the earth climate temp 200 years ago down to the tenth of a degree Science cant tell you so how can the definitively tell you it is hotter then ever
     
  10. Befuddled Alien

    Befuddled Alien Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I love the back handedness of this false dichotomy. It simultaneously makes the claim that: 1) You are not curious or committed unless you read his books and 2) That there are only two options for getting information (books and the 'internet') and one is good and one is bad. Both of these are not true.

    Then you imply that anyone who may insult you is therefore an 'alarmist'. Very nice way to paint anyone who disagrees with you with an insult while complaining about being insulted. That should keep your bubble secure.

    You do provide book titles ... that part is true.
     
  11. Befuddled Alien

    Befuddled Alien Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    That book from Pielke Jr. is based on opinion and was made for profit. Do the homework if you are interested. I'm not interested in persuading anyone with preconceptions but I will offer references which negate those preconceptions which can be utilized by those with initiative and curiosity and the desire to challenge their own preconceptions.

    Wow ... that's kinda fun and easy. I like your style of refutation much better than the hard, factual way. I can just say something and tell the other person to go look for the evidence. Saves a ton of time.
     
  12. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,611
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You've refuted nothing because you have used the genetic fallacy to justify not reading the book which is a analysis showing the opposite of what you believe. The book is based on factual information which show that global warming does not increase the severity and occurance of extreme weather conditions. In fact the opposite effect may be taking place. I've developed my understanding of the effects of global warming by studying both sides of the issue aided by my technical engineering background.
     
  13. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,611
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My claim is that it is not possible to understand an issue unless arguments from both sides of the issue are considered. RP Jr. is a respected authority on global warming and does believe that AGW is occurring. But the statement that extreme weather occurances are increasing due to global warming is not trur as he proves in the book you refuse to read.

    And again the insults and personal attacks continue from those who do not choose to study the issue from both sides.
     
  14. Befuddled Alien

    Befuddled Alien Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I know ... see, all I did there was just reversed the wording of what you said. I'm surprised you did not catch that bit. My argument in that sentence is exactly as bad as yours was in the prior. The only difference is I know my was bad.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Your first error is considering there to be 'sides'.
     
  15. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,611
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I caught the message you attempted to convey but it was a failed argument for the reasons I've pointed out. I've done the homework with regard to both sides of the issues (and there are two sides).
     
  16. Befuddled Alien

    Befuddled Alien Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Then it wasn't 'attempted'

    No it wasn't (Again, I gotta hand it to you, your way of arguing is much, much easier. I kinda like this 'Just assert stuff wildly' manner of yours.)

    Well the only side I know of is the side that wants to discover "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world." If you think there is another 'side' to this, you are going to have to lay it out there.
     
  17. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,611
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you do your homework you can argue reasonably. The two sides are the alarmists who put forth that increasing CO2 will result in the end of civilization and those who correctly argue that the historical record shows a much lower climate sensitivity to CO2 than the models predict and the best way to deal with any adverse effects of global warming (which is a net benefit for the next ~ 200 years) is to grow economies (create wealth) as efficiently as possible without gov intervention in setting energy prices and forcing the use of inefficient energy sources. The latter argument is based on science which deals with real world data and not with computer simulations. BTW, if the science is settled as so many say, then why is there such a large variation in the output of these models.
     
  18. Dingo

    Dingo New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,529
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are on a forum dude. You're not working in a library or selling books. Since there are plenty of links to RP Jr.on the internet, why not offer some? Perhaps you don't know how it works. Put the name in a search engine like google and you will discover a host of sources on your climate hero to select from. I don't get the point of this persistent windy avoidance of such a simple action. Since you can't bring yourself to link to the fellow due to some disability or something I will supply one for you.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/fivethirtyeight-pielke-downplay-climate-damages.html

    Enjoy!
     
  19. Dingo

    Dingo New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,529
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I see, if they can only determine temperature down to a quarter of a degree then they should not draw any relative conclusions between now and then. Interesting logic. By the way, who is saying that now is hotter than ever?.
     
  20. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,611
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Skeptical science is a website set up by the hockey team to smear global warming realists. Surely you know that. Read his books and then compare the piece in skeptical science which I've also read previously in an effort to get both sides. RP Jr. discusses his time at the 538 and the smears that ensued. You owe it to yourself to get both sides of the story. But it's a waste of time to argue with someone who refuses to look at both sides of the story. I've had plenty of experience in doing so and been accused of selling books many times as well (that personal attack/insult was not at all original).
     
  21. Befuddled Alien

    Befuddled Alien Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Can you? I have yet to see evidence of you either doing homework or arguing reasonably. Lots of wild assertions though.

    So let me get this straight ... when you say;

    ... THOSE are what you think the two sides are?!? The number of logical fallacies in that one sentence of yours is truly staggering. No scientific paper, ever, has contained the phrase "increasing CO2 will result in the end of civilization". That you start your explanation of 'sides' with that comedic gem shows just how dishonest you are.

    It's not an argument. It's barely a coherent sentence. It's mostly just a jumbled mess of your train of thought and yet more baseless assertions. It's a weird mix of pseudo science and economic/political witnessing.

    Let me honestly ask you this, if you truly believe that "it is not possible to understand an issue unless arguments from both sides of the issue are considered", how can you ever convince yourself that you do this if you characterize anyone who may disagree with you as "the alarmists"?
     
  22. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,611
    Trophy Points:
    113
    After considering both sides of the issue I and a great many others consider those to whom global warming is a major global problem requiring immediate and significant (with regard to the reduction of economic growth) to be alarmists. Alarmists insist that the upper limits of general circulation models dictate immediate action and in some cases accuse those who do not accept this should be (literally) prosecuted.
     
  23. TRFjr

    TRFjr Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Messages:
    17,331
    Likes Received:
    8,800
    Trophy Points:
    113
    yes because they are using down to the tenth of a degree to tell us it is hotter then it has ever been science claims the earth has warmed by .8 degrees in the last 100 years

    so to be able to tell us the earth warmed by .8 degrees in the last 100 years and that rise makes it the hottest it ever has been then to make that claim they need to know past temps down to the tenth of a degree
     
  24. Befuddled Alien

    Befuddled Alien Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    It is most definitely NOT the hottest it has ever been:
    We have a few tenths of a degree to go to reach that 3,600° mark.
     
  25. Befuddled Alien

    Befuddled Alien Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Yes,yes, you have already said this babble ... you consider anyone who doesn't agree with you to be an 'alarmist'. We get that.

    What I asked you was: if you truly believe that "it is not possible to understand an issue unless arguments from both sides of the issue are considered", how can you ever convince yourself that you do this if you characterize anyone who may disagree with you as "the alarmists"?

    You are poisoning your own well. This is classic bubble mentality.
     

Share This Page