many worse case temperature predictions were missed
at the same time the solar cycle was reduced in spot numbers spot size and numbers are related to solar output low output = less spots = cooler earth 1816 also had a huge volcano but was really cold current dip low cycle is about 1/2 as spotted as normal we should cool and not setting records but that CC /GW thing with the extra CO2 IS KICKING IN LIKE IT OR NOT WE ARE WARMER THEN WE SHOULD BE IN A DOWN CYCLE
Originally posted by randye: Wow! That's home "down home" Tennessee / Appalachian phraseology right there Cooter...
Oh god, here comes the Barney Fife of semantics policing again. What can we do for ya, officer? Somebody guilty of a typo, or incomplete edit? Need us to change our word usage? Restructure our sentences?
Originally posted by NewDustin: Could you elaborate on this, or specify where you think I've done misrepresented an argument against me? This accusation has been leveled against me a few times here, but I've yet to have someone point out where or how I am doing it.
Well now, I did not say you misrepresented an argument against yourself. My intent was to point out how you claimed the article used a straw man argument yet did not refute it with evidence which disproved it.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: Those were not opinion pieces that I linked you to, they were meta-analyses from primary authorities in the field of climatology. I could throw NOAA in there too, if you want, or really any international scientific body recognized as an authority in climate.
Primary authorities in the field of climatology ? NASA ? My my. Do we fund NASA to study inner space ? Their funding comes from those who want to enact the global warming doctrine. GFDL (AGU) ? They do not impress me, however, give me the numbers from NASA and AGU.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: As for barometric pressure, both organizations address changes in barometric pressure at length and in the context of global warming, you just didn't look beyond the articles I linked to.
If you say so. Show me.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: Not sure what the purpose of that link was, but if you're referring to Georgetown, Texas, that very much proves that there are dumb ways to go about energy policy. Given that there are several countries getting huge portions of their energy from renewables, I don't think this example is very damning outside of "Texas cities shouldn't try to grift ERCOT with energy production schemes they haven't run by their citizens."
Wow. I live in Texas. ERCOT is not against green energy. They are not for fossil fueled energy. I am not against green energy nor for fossil fueled energy. The purpose of my link was to point out that largely (your word) depending on "renewables" is not a good idea.
Wow. I live in Texas. ERCOT is not against green energy. They are not for fossil fueled energy. I am not against green energy nor for fossil fueled energy. The purpose of my link was to point out that largely (your word) depending on "renewables" is not a good idea.
Though the shift is leading the electric sector toward more alternative resources, carbon-free ambitions remain largely ambitions. But six U.S. cities have reached their goals of not just a carbon-free power mix, but a 100% renewable one. Those cities range from less than 1,000 people to around 50,000 and stretch from Vermont to Texas to Alaska. What got them there?[/URL]
''Wholesale prices were kept at an artificially inflated level of $9,000 for about four days, an amount normally only hit momentarily, in fear of instability even after electricity demand dropped. Total Texas electricity costs on February 16 alone reached $10.3 billion, greater than the $9.8 billion spent in all of 2020.[22] The legislature allowed issuance of about $5 billion in bonds to pay for it, or $200 per Texan.[22] The then-CEO of ERCOT testified under oath that Governor Abbot had ordered power prices to stay at this level, which led to the bankruptcy of the Brazos Electric co-op.''
Originally posted by cliffw: Well now, I did not say you misrepresented an argument against yourself. My intent was to point out how you claimed the article used a straw man argument yet did not refute it with evidence which disproved it.
Got it, I took that as you saying I was guilty of it. My goal was to point out examples of straw man from that article; it uses it repeatedly throughout, and is a very good reference for "what is straw man." The point of straw man is to obfuscate the argument and force your opponent into defending a position they never took. I don't need to address his arguments against stances that don't exist or arguments nobody is making..but also I provided quite a bit of evidence...did you not see that?
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Primary authorities in the field of climatology ? NASA ? My my. Do we fund NASA to study inner space ? Their funding comes from those who want to enact the global warming doctrine. GFDL (AGU) ? They do not impress me, however, give me the numbers from NASA and AGU.
You're welcome to suggest better sources. It would be more productive than just poo pooing NASA. I don't want to play citation whack-a-mole. I'm also not sure what further numbers you are asking for.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: If you say so. Show me.
Feel free to take my word for it, Google it, or assume I made it up ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Wow. I live in Texas. ERCOT is not against green energy. They are not for fossil fueled energy. I am not against green energy nor for fossil fueled energy. The purpose of my link was to point out that largely (your word) depending on "renewables" is not a good idea.... ...Though the shift is leading the electric sector toward more alternative resources, carbon-free ambitions remain largely ambitions. But six U.S. cities have reached their goals of not just a carbon-free power mix, but a 100% renewable one. Those cities range from less than 1,000 people to around 50,000 and stretch from Vermont to Texas to Alaska. What got them there?
That's not what I'm saying! I don't have any opinion on ERCOT's (or your) stance on energy efficiency or renewable energy. I was saying that city in particular had some scheme to overproduce and resell the excess energy to ERCOT, and they closed their citizens out of the review/decision-making process, and that's why they became a bad example. I agree there needs to be something to supplement renewables at this point, that's why I said "mostly renewables." My choice would be nuclear to fill that gap, if I had any say. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 10-15-2024).]
Originally posted by NewDustin: You're welcome to suggest better sources. It would be more productive than just poo pooing NASA. I don't want to play citation whack-a-mole. I'm also not sure what further numbers you are asking for.
Neither NASA nor GFDL had any numbers. Stormfax does.
Whack-a-mole is the game. Let's rename it "debate".
Neither NASA nor GFDL had any numbers. Stormfax does.
Whack-a-mole is the game. Let's rename it "debate".
Stormfax is an aggregation website. The primary source for the information Stormfax is using is the NOAA. Both the NASA and GFDL articles linked to the same NOAA findings and their updated counterparts. If you prefer the Stormfax interface I'm good with it; it's the same data.
That data shows a significant increase in the number and intensity of storms.
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 10-15-2024).]
Which hurricanes are the worst ? The ones named after woman, or men. Inquiring minds want to know.
random chance
name sets are announced far in advance
your inquiring is the stuff internet BS is made of I do note the anti-data spin of many con's posts your boy's are con-vinced somebody is out to get you
maybe the english common names go north and indian or spanish go south what about arab names
Originally posted by cliffw: I do not see that. I see it as different year, same zhit. Weather. What 'ya gonna do ? Some days it shines, some days it does not.
Ok, so on that hand we have you, and on the other hand we have the NOAA, NASA, the rest of the alphabet and all the Dr's too. And Bill Nye, though I liked it better when he made music videos.
Originally posted by NewDustin: Ok, so on that hand we have you, and on the other hand we have the NOAA, NASA, the rest of the alphabet and all the Dr's too. And Bill Nye, though I liked it better when he made music videos.
No, on one hand we have bad hurricane years, and on the other hand, not so much. Today, and then.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 10-18-2024).]
Originally posted by olejoedad: I was simply pointing out the discrepancies between the two information sources.
I was pointing out there are no discrepancies because it's the exact same data, just presented in a different format. Stormfax is open that they're using NOAA data, so using Stormfax to challenge NOAA data doesn't work.
Originally posted by cliffw: No, on one hand we have bad hurricane years, and on the other hand, not so much. Today, and then.
I'm not denying your interpretation of the data, I'm just pointing out that it is at odds with the interpretation of the folks much more authoritative than yourself. If you look back at what I posted, there is statistical analysis, meta-analysis of studies, and clear trends in the data presented; there's a very clear backing to their argument. What you are saying appears to be "at a glance this all looks the same to me."
quote
Originally posted by ray b: so do you support margery trailer park green saying the storms are con-trolled and directed ?
I'm all for it. More politicians should be open about their kooky conspiracy theories.
I was pointing out there are no discrepancies because it's the exact same data, just presented in a different format. Stormfax is open that they're using NOAA data, so using Stormfax to challenge NOAA data doesn't work.
You didn't bother to look at the discrepancies, did you?
I'm not challenging NOAA data, but I am saying that NOAA and STORMFAX data are different.
Originally posted by olejoedad: You didn't bother to look at the discrepancies, did you?
I'm not challenging NOAA data, but I am saying that NOAA and STORMFAX data are different.
I did, and I addressed it in the link I provided. The NOAA 'additional data' link I provided leads to the NOAA's National Hurrican Center and Central Pacific Hurrican Center's 2017 data. If you scroll to the bottom of that page, you'll see the exact same image you linked to, in it's original context. The page I linked to contains all of the storm counts that image is showing. If you add them up you'll see that they are the same as what Stormfax has on their site. I checked for 2017 specifically since that's the year you chose. The reason the numbers add up is because Stormfax is citing that data. There is not a discrepancy; you appear to have misread the image and not checked the source it came from.
Originally posted by NewDustin: I'm not denying your interpretation of the data, I'm just pointing out that it is at odds with the interpretation of the folks much more authoritative than yourself. If you look back at what I posted, there is statistical analysis, meta-analysis of studies, and clear trends in the data presented; there's a very clear backing to their argument. What you are saying appears to be "at a glance this all looks the same to me."
The interpretation of the folks much more authoritative than myself ? Authoritative ? They are paid whores.
The Kung Flu. The CDC issued many directed rules. Masks did not work. The CDC succumbed to the Teacher's Union's wishes in the CDC's guidance. Authoritative means little to me.
The first example of attribution science dates back 20 years to an academic paper that purported to show the European heatwave of 2003 was linked to climate change.
Ah yes. 20 years ago. When the Global Warming folks got caught placing their heat measuring devices in spots which would give inflated data. Also when the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) got caught in the email scandal which admitted the supposed phenomena was fake.
The interpretation of the folks much more authoritative than myself ? Authoritative ? They are paid whores.
The Kung Flu. The CDC issued many directed rules. Masks did not work. The CDC succumbed to the Teacher's Union's wishes in the CDC's guidance. Authoritative means little to me.
I've offered to cite just about any academic body, so my question is: All of them? Every major government's research arms, all major scientific/educational institutions, all credible research bodies...they're all paid off?
Originally posted by NewDustin: I've offered to cite just about any academic body, so my question is: All of them? Every major government's research arms, all major scientific/educational institutions, all credible research bodies...they're all paid off?
Only the shadow knows.
NewDustin, police departments were told to stand down during the rioting of the George Floyd protests from 2020 - 2022.
