How to talk to a climate change denier, and then what?

Status
Not open for further replies.
it was just later this year, turn on your TV and see what is happening right now.

There are many things that effect tornadoes, not just temperature.
 
I am sure that the families of the over 50 dead in Oklahoma wish that it had stayed inactive. An fe 4 or 5 in Moore this afternoon and an fe4 in Grandbury on Wed. In many years there are only 2 or 3 of those in an entire year.
 
I was in Ok City in late 2000 and a contact there took me for a tour of the suburbs that had been hit a year or 2 previously - wide areas of concrete slabs where houses used to be - is this the same area as was devastated back then??

I remember the TV pictures from back when those ones hit of power substations exploding!
 
Already they are politicizing the Tornadoes . never let a crisis go to waste . I find it disgusting. [h=1]DEM. SENATOR, OTHERS USE OKLA. TORNADOES TO HIT GOP OVER SANDY RELIEF BILL, ‘CLIMATE CHANGE’5 of the 7 members of the OK congressional delegation voted NO on the Hurricane Sandy relief aid package (1/2)[/h]about 5 hours ago via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@DaviSusanSusan Davis




Two YES votes were Reps. Tom Cole and Frank Lucas. Hurricane hit hard in Cole's hometown. (2/2)about 5 hours ago via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@DaviSusanSusan Davis




Then there’s this from a Vanity Fair contributing editor:
And again, I ask the question: Will tea partiers call for offsets to pay for relief to tornado states? Or do they now understand tragedy?about 3 hours ago via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@kurteichenwaldKurt Eichenwald




The Nation magazine editor and publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel (i.e. the same media personality who openly admitted in February that her interns have no idea who Bob Woodward is) thought this was a point worth making:
If GOP going to use IRS "scandal" to demolish government,they may wish to look at need for very same government in Oklahoma tornado disasterabout 2 hours ago via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@KatrinaNationKatrina vandenHeuvel




POLITICO’s Glenn Thrush wanted a piece of the action:
It is striking that Oklahoma's senators are 1) a federal spending skeptic and 2) global warming denierabout 1 hour ago via Twitter for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite

@GlennThrushGlenn Thrush




And there’s this from Roll Call’s Meredith Shiner:
Will the GOP lawmakers tweeting "thoughts and prayers" to Oklahoma tonight demand disaster aid be offset?about 2 hours ago via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@meredithshinerMeredith Shiner




And let’s not forget the Huffington Post:
Okla. GOP senators have shaky records on disaster reliefhttp://t.co/rWb2lSez3fabout 3 hours ago via The Huffington PostReplyRetweetFavorite

@HuffPostPolHuffPost Politics




As of this writing, the death toll from Monday’s tornadoes had surpassed 51.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree, but that's the state of US politics. I seem to remember right-wing supporters jumping straight on Sandy when it occurred. Donald Trump in particularly was doing some frenzied Tweeting I recall.
 
I agree, but that's the state of US politics. I seem to remember right-wing supporters jumping straight on Sandy when it occurred. Donald Trump in particularly was doing some frenzied Tweeting I recall.
Trump Right wing ? he goes with the wind or his Hair .
 
Sadly, RonJ's link regarding the lack of Tornadoes from "May 2012 to April 2013" seems a tad unfortunate now.

Thoughts to the families involved...
 
I can't help but notice a lot of references from "whats up with that" and Roy Spencer, both some very well debunked sources.

Is there some specific question that I might answer to help out a little

Spencer and his pall Christy are both famous for producing flawed work and at this point have difficulty getting papers published in established climate related publications

See
http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm


The reference was satellite lower tropospheric temperature. Are you going to debunk satellite data? If the temperature is 75 degrees it does not matter who the messenger is.
 
If you could provide the exact data you have an issue with, who collected that data and where was it published I'm sure I can clear up any issues you might have with it. There is a satellite data set out there that is known to be faulty because of a failure to correct for drift, which you might be sourcing, but I can't be sure unless you give me specifics. I really can't have any idea what the question is unless I have access to the particular data set in question.

If you go to the link I provided you can see for yourself what I'm talking about in the MSU satelite data, although it might not be the data set your referring to


John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama published a series of papers starting about 1990 that implied the troposphere was warming at a much slower rate than the surface temperature record and climate models indicated Spencer and Christy (1992). One early version of their data even showed a cooling trend (Christy et al. 1995).

Several groups of scientists began looking closely at this discrepancy. With so many other pieces of evidence indicating warming, it seemed unlikely that the troposphere would not be warming. Errors were discovered in the methods the UAH group used to adjust the data.
To understand what was wrong: The satellites must pass over the same spot on Earth at the same time each day to get a temperature average. In reality the time the satellite passes drifts slightly as the orbit slowly decays. To compensate for this and other orbital changes a series of adjustments must be applied to the data.

The MSU satellite data is collected from a number of satellites orbiting & providing daily coverage of some 80% of the Earth's surface. Each day the orbits shift and 100% coverage is achieved every 3-4 days. The microwave sensors on the satellites do not directly measure temperature, but rather radiation given off by oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere. The intensity of this radiation is directly proportional to the temperature of the air and is therefore used to estimate global temperatures.

There are also differences between the sensors that were onboard each satellite and merging this data to one continuous record is not easily done. It was nearly 13 years after the orginal papers that the adjustments that Christy and Spencer originally applied were found to be incorrect. Mears et al. (2003) and Mears et al. (2005).

Whats interesting to me and should be to anyone seriously looking into the issue of climate shift is that Spencer and Christy have both refused to correct their papers and still promote the use of faulty data. Needless to say both have been found out to have taken money from the oil and gas industry and both contribute regularly to denier websites. Actually the oil and gas industry has a $10,000 bounty for each anti global warming paper anyone can get published in any rag. Pretty sure it was Christy who even worked for the tobacco industry's disinformation campaign and to this day questions whether smoking is bad for your health. Probably not the impartial scientist you'd be expecting given his education. In the end some people are just in it for the money and Christy and Spencer are two shining examples in the crown of crap. Not sure if this is the data to which you refer but if it is, its old hat and very well known to be flawed.
 
"At least two other groups keep track of the tropospheric temperature using satellites and they all now show warming in the troposphere that is consistent with the surface temperature record."

"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming... This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."

Since 1998, where's the warming in the lower troposphere, as the satellite data is consistent with the surface temperature record? The satellite data shows a peak in 1998 which has not been exceeded. Christy did not create the satellite data which is in the chart at skeptical science, featured on the page you linked to. The data at the far right of the chart shows to be below trend.
 
Since when was a 12 month period indicative of anything when it comes to weather trends?


How about a chart of the long term, from the 1950's, forward? The trend i see is less F3+ tornadoes on an annual basis.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/ef3-ef5.gif


Can you see another trend below? F5 tornadoes. red: 1953 to 1983. blue: 1984 to Moore Oklahoma. The number of F5's in 30 red years out number 29 blue. 7 F5's in 1974.


59 May 20, 2013 Moore OK
58 May 24, 2011 El Reno/Piedmont OK
57 May 22, 2011 Joplin MO
56 April 27, 2011 Rainsville/Sylvania AL
55 April 27, 2011 Preston MS
54 April 27, 2011 Hackleburg/Phil Campbell AL
53 April 27, 2011 Smithville MS
52 May 25, 2008 Parkersburg IA
51 May 4, 2007 Greensburg KS
50 May 3, 1999 Bridge Creek/Moore OK
49 April 16, 1998 Waynesboro TN
48 April 8, 1998 Oak Grove/Pleasant Grove AL
47 May 27, 1997 Jarrell TX
46 July 18, 1996 Oakfield WI
45 June 16, 1992 Chandler MN
44 April 26, 1991 Andover KS
43 August 28, 1990 Plainfield IL
42 March 13, 1990 Goessel KS
41 March 13, 1990 Hesston KS
40 May 31, 1985 Niles OH
39 June 7, 1984 Barneveld WI

38 April 2, 1982 Broken Bow OK
37 April 4, 1977 Birmingham AL
36 June 13, 1976 Jordan IA
35 April 19, 1976 Brownwood TX
34 March 26, 1976 Spiro OK
33 April 3, 1974 Guin AL
32 April 3, 1974 Tanner AL
31 April 3, 1974 Mt. Hope AL
30 April 3, 1974 Sayler Park OH
29 April 3, 1974 Brandenburg KY
28 April 3, 1974 Xenia OH
27 April 3, 1974 Daisy Hill IN
26 May 6, 1973 Valley Mills TX
25 February 21, 1971 Delhi LA
24 May 11, 1970 Lubbock TX
23 June 13, 1968 Tracy MN
22 May 15, 1968 Maynard IA
21 May 15, 1968 Charles City IA
20 April 23, 1968 Gallipolis OH
19 October 14, 1966 Belmond IA
18 June 8, 1966 Topeka KS
17 March 3, 1966 Jackson MS
16 May 8, 1965 Gregory SD
15 May 5, 1964 Bradshaw NE
14 April 3, 1964 Wichita Falls TX
13 May 5, 1960 Prague OK
12 June 4, 1958 Menomonie WI
11 December 18, 1957 Murphysboro IL
10 June 20, 1957 Fargo ND
9 May 20, 1957 Ruskin Heights MO
8 April 3, 1956 Grand Rapids MI
7 May 25, 1955 Udall KS
6 May 25, 1955 Blackwell OK
5 December 5, 1953 Vicksburg MS
4 June 27, 1953 Adair IA
3 June 8, 1953 Flint MI
2 May 29, 1953 Ft. Rice ND
1 May 11, 1953 Waco TX



 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mears et al (2003 ) ( 2005 ) both go over how and where Christy and Spencer screwed up calibrating there satellite data. The links are both in the quote in post # 136
 
I would like to know why you keep talking about tornadoes? The climate itself has little to do with them. Even more so Fes.
 
Nice call Cairenn, tornado's are a weather event, not a climate event.
Whats a Hurricane ? A CLIMATE EVENT OR A WEATHER EVENT ?
While many Americans were tuned into news coverage of the massive damage from tornadoes ravaging the state of Oklahoma, Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse took to the Senate floor to rail against his Republican colleagues for denying the theory of anthropogenic global warming.Whitehouse spent 15 minutes chastising GOP senators and justified his remarks by alluding to states that seek federal assistance in the wake of natural disasters.
“So, you may have a question for me,” Whitehouse said. “Why do you care? Why do you, Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, care if we Republicans run off the climate cliff like a bunch of proverbial lemmings and disgrace ourselves? I’ll tell you why. We’re stuck in this together. We are stuck in this together. When cyclones tear up Oklahoma and hurricanes swamp Alabama and wildfires scorch Texas, you come to us, the rest of the country, for billions of dollars to recover. And the damage that your polluters and deniers are doing doesn’t just hit Oklahoma and Alabama and Texas. It hits Rhode Island with floods and storms. It hits Oregon with acidified seas, it hits Montana with dying forests. So, like it or not, we’re in this together.”
Content from External Source
 
You aren't seriously offering some political rant as a scientific refutation of some basic definitions are you
 
You aren't seriously offering some political rant as a scientific refutation of some basic definitions are you
I asked you a question .. The rant was a politician who thinks they are connected Tornadoes and Climate change . Global warming is political . unless you havent noticed ? Now answer the question and ignore the quote . Please of course .
 
I asked you a question .. The rant was a politician who thinks they are connected Tornadoes and Climate change . Global warming is political . unless you havent noticed ? Now answer the question and ignore the quote . Please of course .

And the majority of our politicians are total morons. As I've said repeatedly on this thread, there is no definite link between hurricane activity, tornado activity, or weather activity to global warming. As Boston said, tornadoes and hurricanes are weather events, which are far different than climatic events.
 
How about a chart of the long term, from the 1950's, forward? The trend i see is less F3+ tornadoes on an annual basis.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/ef3-ef5.gif


Can you see another trend below? F5 tornadoes. red: 1953 to 1983. blue: 1984 to Moore Oklahoma. The number of F5's in 30 red years out number 29 blue. 7 F5's in 1974.


59 May 20, 2013 Moore OK
58 May 24, 2011 El Reno/Piedmont OK
57 May 22, 2011 Joplin MO
56 April 27, 2011 Rainsville/Sylvania AL
55 April 27, 2011 Preston MS
54 April 27, 2011 Hackleburg/Phil Campbell AL
53 April 27, 2011 Smithville MS
52 May 25, 2008 Parkersburg IA
51 May 4, 2007 Greensburg KS
50 May 3, 1999 Bridge Creek/Moore OK
49 April 16, 1998 Waynesboro TN
48 April 8, 1998 Oak Grove/Pleasant Grove AL
47 May 27, 1997 Jarrell TX
46 July 18, 1996 Oakfield WI
45 June 16, 1992 Chandler MN
44 April 26, 1991 Andover KS
43 August 28, 1990 Plainfield IL
42 March 13, 1990 Goessel KS
41 March 13, 1990 Hesston KS
40 May 31, 1985 Niles OH
39 June 7, 1984 Barneveld WI

38 April 2, 1982 Broken Bow OK
37 April 4, 1977 Birmingham AL
36 June 13, 1976 Jordan IA
35 April 19, 1976 Brownwood TX
34 March 26, 1976 Spiro OK
33 April 3, 1974 Guin AL
32 April 3, 1974 Tanner AL
31 April 3, 1974 Mt. Hope AL
30 April 3, 1974 Sayler Park OH
29 April 3, 1974 Brandenburg KY
28 April 3, 1974 Xenia OH
27 April 3, 1974 Daisy Hill IN
26 May 6, 1973 Valley Mills TX
25 February 21, 1971 Delhi LA
24 May 11, 1970 Lubbock TX
23 June 13, 1968 Tracy MN
22 May 15, 1968 Maynard IA
21 May 15, 1968 Charles City IA
20 April 23, 1968 Gallipolis OH
19 October 14, 1966 Belmond IA
18 June 8, 1966 Topeka KS
17 March 3, 1966 Jackson MS
16 May 8, 1965 Gregory SD
15 May 5, 1964 Bradshaw NE
14 April 3, 1964 Wichita Falls TX
13 May 5, 1960 Prague OK
12 June 4, 1958 Menomonie WI
11 December 18, 1957 Murphysboro IL
10 June 20, 1957 Fargo ND
9 May 20, 1957 Ruskin Heights MO
8 April 3, 1956 Grand Rapids MI
7 May 25, 1955 Udall KS
6 May 25, 1955 Blackwell OK
5 December 5, 1953 Vicksburg MS
4 June 27, 1953 Adair IA
3 June 8, 1953 Flint MI
2 May 29, 1953 Ft. Rice ND
1 May 11, 1953 Waco TX




You call 30 vs. 29 a trend? Again - there is hardly a tie between tornado events and annual temperature change.

That 1974 event all happened on the same day - there was not a single EF5 for the rest of the year.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And the majority of our politicians are total morons. As I've said repeatedly on this thread, there is no definite link between hurricane activity, tornado activity, or weather activity to global warming. As Boston said, tornadoes and hurricanes are weather events, which are far different than climatic events.
Thats my point because thats all we here about Global warming is increased Hurricans and weather events as if they are something new , No one called me a denier the title of this thread and the constant use of the phrase is offensive , its labeling . Im sorry but Global warming is purely political , Blame the politicians because they are to blame for all the deniers. Since we know they are the biggest liars or Lawyers on the planet .
 
Thats my point because thats all we here about Global warming is increased Hurricans and weather events as if they are something new , No one called me a denier the title of this thread and the constant use of the phrase is offensive , its labeling . Im sorry but Global warming is purely political , Blame the politicians because they are to blame for all the deniers. Since we know they are the biggest liars or Lawyers on the planet .

People who want to shove global warming down your throats will take any little thing as evidence as such and use it as much as they can until people realize it is total BS. The people who actually study this stuff carefully don't do that. As far as I'm concerned via validated data, the earth is warming.

Global warming, as far as the data is concerned, exists. The extent to which it is blamed for rather trivial events...well, yeah. You can go after politicians and the media for that.
 
oh and Joe, its no small wonder that politicians have tried to take advantage of climate change. Its what they do, capitalize on anything they can. Take financial and political advantage of whatever possible but that doesn't make the science of climate shift any less valid.
 
I think Sen. Whitehouse may be dramatizing things to score some points, but the broader linkages he makes are valid.

The best analogy I've heard for explaining the relationship between climate change and individual extreme weather events is this: consider rampant steroid abuse in major league baseball. Players who juiced had demonstrable increases in their overall home run stats, but that doesn't mean that you can point to a specific home run in a specific game by Barry Bonds or Jason Giambi and say "This home run was directly attributable to steroid abuse."

In much the same way, it is an error to point to a given tornado or hurricane and say "This one was caused by global warming." I cringe when politicians on the left do it (although from the quote, Whitehouse doesn't seem to be making a direct causal attribution between the Oklahoma tornado and climate change)

As plane852 notes, global climate change is happening and the data support it, and credible sources have proposed a corresponding increase in the overall likelihood of disruptive weather events. I'll defer to scientists in the thread to evaluate that claim, though as a lay person I understand that the consensus supports it.
 
lets just say the greater the energy differential in the system is, the more sever the weather patterns become. Those differentials come from more energy being available, not because more energy hit the planet, but because more energy remained within the system. Which of course happened because less energy was able to dissipate back away from the system.
 
oh and Joe, its no small wonder that politicians have tried to take advantage of climate change. Its what they do, capitalize on anything they can. Take financial and political advantage of whatever possible but that doesn't make the science of climate shift any less valid.
No its because they want to profit off it . So they use the scientist to come up with a consensus that fits the narrative . Global cooling or global warming whatever fits the bill . Is it warming ? I could give a rats ass . Better then a ice age . Meanwhile they are moving us closer to WW3 and real global warming .
 
No its because they want to profit off it . So they use the scientist to come up with a consensus that fits the narrative . Global cooling or global warming whatever fits the bill . Is it warming ? I could give a rats ass . Better then a ice age . Meanwhile they are moving us closer to WW3 and real global warming .

Wild speculation Joe. Who are "they" and how do you know what they are doing?
 
No its because they want to profit off it . So they use the scientist to come up with a consensus that fits the narrative . Global cooling or global warming whatever fits the bill . Is it warming ? I could give a rats ass . Better then a ice age . Meanwhile they are moving us closer to WW3 and real global warming .

Thats not how science works, and Climate studies is definitely science. It doesn't come to a conclusion and then go try and find data to support it. Your confusing how politics works with how science works.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top