Global Warming

[logician]

Why are so many people unable to grasp this simple concept, anecdotal evidence means nothing. So some leaves stayed on some trees this year, and the US's 2007's hurricane season has been fairly mild; big deal. Neither serves to further the argument in the slightest.

Untrue, as it is a symptom of global warming.

 

[yossarian22]

Untrue, as it is a symptom of global warming.

I suggest you change your username.

 

[logician]

I suggest you change your username.

You are the one posting in defiance of logic, as it is a done deal that the general climatological community accepts that mankind-induced global warming is real and accelerating. Post your arguments to them.

 

[camanintx]

Why are so many people unable to grasp this simple concept, anecdotal evidence means nothing.

Except when there is a pattern behind the anecdotal evidence. Does a four-fold increase in natural disasters constitute evidence of a link between global warming and severe weather?

 

[yossarian22]

You are the one posting in defiance of logic, as it is a done deal that the general climatological community accepts that mankind-induced global warming is real and accelerating.

Really? Evidence of this assertion?
The paper that started the whole "consensus on global warming" is flawed.
A new paper showed that neutrality on the issue is the majority opinion.
Further more, you are doing little but appealing to authority. Remember how a consensus of people believed the earth was flat?

Post your arguments to them.

I have and did.
Anecdotes do not further a conversation. Even a dead rodent could see the flaw in the argument you made, which was the equivalent of saying "It is colder in New York City today, so global warming must be false"

 

[yossarian22]

Except when there is a pattern behind the anecdotal evidence.

Ah, but then it is is not anecdotal evidence is it?

Does a four-fold increase in natural disasters constitute evidence of a link between global warming and severe weather?

No graphs, no methods, not much of anything.
Without seeing how they came to such an conclusion, I can't comment on the validity of their results.
A counter argument could be made that we have simply gotten better at detecting severe weather, and therefore we have noticed an increase. That link harps way too much on the number of people affected, which is irrelevant. Maybe the disasters hit a more populous area. It is also quite misleading, as it mentions droughts a few times and says that an increase of droughts can be expected in Vietnam

 

[camanintx]

No graphs, no methods, not much of anything.
Without seeing how they came to such an conclusion, I can't comment on the validity of their results.

Didn't click through to the actual report, did you?

 

[yossarian22]

Didn't click through to the actual report, did you?

Doh. Didn't notice that hidden link. My bad.
I stand corrected. This paper shows us nothing in the slightest.
Number of "climate disasters" have increased. Guess what parameter is used to define how severe a climate disaster is? Number of people killed. So if over a dozen intensity 5 hurricanes occur within a month and nobody is killed, its not a climate disaster at all.
Even the base claims of this paper, which are entirely irrelevant to this debate, are suspect.
Here is a quote from one of the citations
"
For CRED[who provides the data used for their graph], a ‘disaster’ is when one of the following occurs: ten or more people are killed, 100 or more are affected, the declaration of a state of emergency, a call for international assistance. A ‘small to medium sized disaster’ involves up to 50 deaths, affects up to 150,000 people or causes up to $200 million in economic losses."

 

[camanintx]

Guess what parameter is used to define how severe a climate disaster is? Number of people killed.

Are you forgetting about the number of people affected? It was right there in the criteria you quoted from CRED.

So if over a dozen intensity 5 hurricanes occur within a month and nobody is killed, its not a climate disaster at all.

No, many of the disasters included in the CRED database have no reported deaths. Hurricane Lili, which struck Louisiana in 2002 causing $2B in damage but killed no one, is included in the database.

 

[logician]

Really? Evidence of this assertion?
Even a dead rodent could see the flaw in the argument you made, which was the equivalent of saying "It is colder in New York City today, so global warming must be false"

This is basically and consistently the type of argument you've been making.

There is no "consensus" among climotologists that says they are now neutral about global warming, and I dare you to link to such a statistic.

 

[yossarian22]

Are you forgetting about the number of people affected? It was right there in the criteria you quoted from CRED.

Irrelevant nit-picking. Its not based off of relative frequency. It shows nothing at all.

No, many of the disasters included in the CRED database have no reported deaths. Hurricane Lili, which struck Louisiana in 2002 causing $2B in damage but killed no one, is included in the database.

Ah, but people were affected weren't they? I will admit to making a poor over-exaggerated analogy though.
This paper still shows nothing in the slightest. Since the severity of a weather event is determined by its effects on a human population, all we can conclude is that more people are being affected by adverse weather. Even that conclusion is suspect due to a failure to address confoundation. There are more people on the earth, meaning there is a greater chance of more people being affected by weather.

 

[logician]

Irrelevant nit-picking. Its not based off of relative frequency. It shows nothing at all.

Ah, but people were affected weren't they? I will admit to making a poor over-exaggerated analogy though.
This paper still shows nothing in the slightest. Since the severity of a weather event is determined by its effects on a human population, all we can conclude is that more people are being affected by adverse weather. Even that conclusion is suspect due to a failure to address confoundation. There are more people on the earth, meaning there is a greater chance of more people being affected by weather.

Global warming is strictly based upon measurements of average temperature at various stations around the globe including ocean temps. Various individual weather phenomenon, which may be symptomatic of global warming, cannot be used as proof or disproof of same.

 

[yossarian22]

Global warming is strictly based upon measurements of average temperature at various stations around the globe including ocean temps. Various individual weather phenomenon, which may be symptomatic of global warming, cannot be used as proof or disproof of same.

I was not using this as a disproof of global warming. Camanintx was trying to show a relationship between global warming (which for the sake of argument I have accepted as true) and severe weather. There has been a total failure to show how global warming would be worse for us.

 

[yossarian22]

This is basically and consistently the type of argument you've been making.

Really? Show me where I make the claim that because scientists are neutral about the issue, we should be neutral. The only reason I mentioned that at all was because of how the "consensus" is invariably mentioned.

There is no "consensus" among climotologists that says they are now neutral about global warming, and I dare you to link to such a statistic.

Anyhow, here is the link. Don't have access to the journal it was published in.

 

[Yerda]

Anyhow, here is the link. Don't have access to the journal it was published in.

That's an interesting link. I'll make a point of looking into it.

 

[View from Here]

clearly, global warming results from massive amounts of pollution being chugged into the atmosphere. unless we stop, we are heading for utter disaster. yet we are too childish to stop.

 

[yossarian22]

clearly, global warming results from massive amounts of pollution being chugged into the atmosphere. unless we stop, we are heading for utter disaster. yet we are too childish to stop.

Yes. Lets dump trillions into something that 1: Is probably natural variation and 2: we probably could not stop even no matter how hard we try.