Steve Breen for October 07, 2016

Are you sure that it was that every door is a wall and that they are not automatic………. what ever that means……..

I’ve wondered about the signs that say “Caution: Automatic Door”; they open automatically for you. Shouldn’t there be signs that say: “Caution: NON-Automatic Door”? That way you don’t run into them, after expecting them to open up for you.

Wow, Emerson really said that?

FL has never ever had a hurricane before this year???

While I believe there is such a thing as “climate change”, I don’t see how you can blame a hurricane because of it. And how do idiots like Matt Drudge see a “conspiracy” here? Nobody but NOAA keeps weather data? Somebody else couldn’t see if the govt. was intentionally fudging data? All of the thousands of people required to perpetrate such a conspiracy can all keep such a secret? Yeah, sure.

The Weather Channel tribe love weather events like this. They do their best to foster a state of national hysteria.

I just hope he doesn’t have a black eye because nobody will believe how he got it. You know what we learned from watching I Love Lucy. Nobody believes the real story about a black eye.

aicarrie1

My mother once got one from opening a gap gate. My father announced, from the pulpit, that she did not run into a door – and left it at that. This was an urban church, so when the cause was named, how many knew what a gap gate was?

“The oceans being .9 degree warmer is what did this guys! If only it was .9 degrees cooler, like it’s supposed to be, we never would have seen hurricanes like we did before climate change was a thing!”

The weather report I saw said this is the worst hurricane to touch land there since 1898. Yeah, it rains all the time, though, so why worry?

Hasn’t anyone notice that 99% of the climate deniers are tied to big business i.e. coal and petroleum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlantic_hurricane_records

.

There is a bar chart of Hurricanes and Storms (Atlantic only) from 1851 to 2016. Before 1920 or so, under-reporting is probably common. With radio, better reporting. Even better with satellites. So while numbers are up (slightly) it is hard to conclude that warming increases number.

Theory and modeling tend indicate that there will be more intense storms. But there is still argument about that.

.

One AGW skeptic has pointed out, in an argument about hurricanes, that a warmer Arctic should mean less heat transfer from the tropics northward in the form of hurricanes and storms. On the other hand, if it is cold water that kills hurricanes, then storms might last longer.

don’t over do it. yes, it is predicted for more and stronger storms, but there would still be hurricanes even if there wasn’t climate change.

Oh, brother. The trolls are really out in force today!

For example, take the error due to under-reporting in space or time. We have data now at frequent intervals and frequent places. By taking the new data and making it sparse in space or time (and then both), one can estimate the errors that occurred because of sparsity at any previous time. Science and Math — the things deniers flat out do not understand or believe.

As for the actual measurements. We have old instruments and can compare their measurements with modern ones and estimate the probable error.

.

As for location problems, those too can be studied, and error estimates made.

The error bars have indeed decreased with time, but the mean values used are probably very good. You can see this in the actual data.

.

http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/warming_world

.

.

http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/

.

Basically, that temperature error argument is just another denier tactic.

I see a deeper meaning here

From the second plot in the Berkeley Earth charts you can see that the error estimated for temperature is about +/- 0.25 degrees in 1850. Measurement error drops very rapidly after that. Whereas the total increase in average temperature since about 1975 is 1.0 degree with an error that is very small.

.

So no, that argument is just plain bat guano, and of less use.

Proxies. (not pixies) Science based on measurements.

.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(climate)

.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record

See gocomics lame explanation for changes in comments.

http://blogs.gocomics.com/

Grand Kid: “Grandpa….did you have global warming when you were a kid?”

Grandpa: “Yep we called it summer.”

Don’t tell Donald Trump that Ralph Waldo said that or he will apply it to Obama’s immigration policies

Look also at the melting Arctic Ice Cap that soon will open a sea trade route across the top of the world that the Russians have been smart enough to build up arms defense to protect since it will save more than 20 days of travel time from Northern Europe to the Asian markets like their new friend in the Phllipines and in Japan instead of going thru the Suez canal. That’s a smoking gun we should be paying attention to. And you can throw in the long drought in the Southwest and here in Southern California for good measure to.

It’s worth looking back at the bogus proclamations after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. ALL the MSM reported that Katrina signaled the start of climate change acceleration of Atlantic hurricanes — both in size and intensity. We experience neither — the OPPOSITE occurred. But the MSM never reported that.

Here’s my documented article on this, including no less than TEN such 2005 MSM Cassandra predictions by climate change “experts” who were seeking grants based on their unfounded assertions.http://riderrants.blogspot.com/2016/10/hurricane-matthew-result-of-climate.html

Great we now control the weather pay more. For. Everything an all is well in weatherville

Now for some more science, as opposed to hooting at media.

.

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html

.

The number of interest in the table on this page is the ACE, or Accumulated Cyclone Energy (defined on the page). This is a nice estimator of the strength of storms during a season.They only do statistics on data from 1968, which is wise, because satellite observations help give better data and more of it.

The mean ACE for 1968 to 2015 is given as 95.4, with a standard deviation of 58.9.

.

The mean for 1995-2015 is 127.7 and the std is 65.0.

.

But for 1968-1994, the mean ACE is 70.3 and the std is 39.2.

.

The bottom line is that the trend is toward more energy in storms and hurricanes, which is to be expected if more heat is available.

alexzabala

And we thought summer warming was global because we were so self-centered we ignored the fact that at that time, half the world was calling it winter. As one of those grandfathers, I can assure you that even back then, many of us were already relying on science, and that includes clergy who were some of the first sccientists.

Every change of weather proves/disproves climate change?

This is why so many are distrusted.

moderateisntleft said,@NeedaChuckle“Can a conservative explain to me why my taxes always have to go to rebuild Florida”.

So you will have a place to vacation.

We sho’ ’preciate all the moolah.

I don’t know what you are drinking, but nowhere did I do anything like

.

deny so vehemently that there could be errors in measurement while admitting in the same comment that there could be errors

.

Temperature measurements are to +/- 0.1 degree or better and have been since at least 1900. Since the 1.0 degree rise is measured in the last 40 years, the accuracy is good enough to be ensure that your silly remark,

.

in fact, the RATE of the increase in accuracy could account for the rate of the rise in temperature

.

is completely bogus. That argument has been used before, so I have no tolerance of it. It’s a sign of the typical “I don’t need to know any facts!” attitude seen here. From deniers.

.

If you don’t like being called out for silly, wrong, and misleading statements, don’t make them.

The folks at Berkeley Earth have run studies to assess the accuracy of measurements from 1850 to the present. Their numbers for the 1850 to 1900 range are slightly better than the 0.25 I eyeballed from the plot for 1850. That’s as it should be because the data did become more accurate with time (more coverage in space an time and more uniformity in measurements). They did this using techniques similar to what I suggested above. And the error bars get better with time.

.

Yes, the means are probably quite good after 1850. Definitely? That’s just a silly attempt to try and say that only some mythical absolutely correct value is useful. And yes, that’s another denier tactic. To insist on inapplicable standards of evidence.

.

We’re not talking about calculating the value of pi , but something for which the measured uncertainty depends on many factors. That’s why there are error bars on data in the science journals. There are agreed upon techniques for estimate the temperature error. And the evidence shoots down your original comment.

Breen is an asshat…Just change your name to Chicken Little already :)

What a stupid cartoon. It doesn’t pass any smell test whatsoever.