SIXTH MAJOR HURRICANE IN THE ATLANTIC!

This time she's Ophelia, a Category 3 who's sideswiping the Azores. This is probably the first time since the Eemian period that a Cat-3 hit the Azores.

Category 3 Hurricane Ophelia.

Let's see: there's Harvey (Cat 4), Irma (Cat 5), Jose (Cat 4), Maria (Cat 5), Lee (Cat 3), and Ophelia (Cat 3).

From the Wikipedia: 

... as of October 2017, six major hurricanes, the highest number since 2005, the highest total accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) since then, and being tied with 18781886, and 1893 for having the greatest number of consecutive hurricanes—[ten—] with Franklin through Ophelia all reaching winds of at least 75 mph (120 km/h). In addition, it has thus far been a very destructive season and likely the costliest on record, with a preliminary total of over $186.8 billion (USD) in damages, nearly all of which was due to three of the major hurricanes of the season—HarveyIrma, and Maria. The season is also one of only six years to feature multiple Category 5 hurricanes. Irma's landfall on Barbuda and Maria's landfall on Dominica make 2017 the second season on record (after 2007) to feature two hurricanes making landfall at Category 5 intensity. In addition, Irma was the strongest hurricane ever recorded to form in the Atlantic Ocean outside of the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea.[2] This season is the only season on record in which three hurricanes each had an ACE of over 40: IrmaJose, and Maria.

[2]  Ops, NHC Atlantic (2017-09-05). "#Irma is the strongest #hurricane in the Atlantic basin outside of the Caribbean Sea & Gulf of Mexico in NHC records"@NHC_Atlantic. Retrieved 2017-09-05.

Three records ties, three broken, the highest accumulated cyclone energy. And Global Warming is supposed to be a myth! And it really looks like the worst case climate change so far is that in the observed data and informational records... except for surface temperatures!




ON EDIT 10-15-2017: Ophelia has since weakened to a Category 1 Hurricane and is expected to hit Ireland at that strength. Of course, it's not like this hasn't happened before, but still...

Comments

opher goodwin Added Oct 16, 2017 - 12:29pm
Well the evidence mounts up. Shame that Trump has pulled the plug on monitoring or investigating the phenomenon. Let's put our heads in the sand. It'll go away.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Oct 16, 2017 - 12:32pm
Hilarious DOHpher! You climate Religionistas always claim weather isn't climate. 
Bill H. Added Oct 16, 2017 - 12:38pm
 
Edward - Thanks for the info.
It's fruitless to try and change the thinking of those who have been convinced by the corporations that global warming is being caused by human activity, or is even occurring.
No evidence of warming oceans, more intense storms, sick degraded forests, increase and severity of wildfires, or the constant breaking of temperature records year after year will even provoke their thoughts.
They have convinced themselves that everything is just fine, increasing CO2 is good for plants and other living things, and coal is the cleanest thing since Zest Soap. They have even given us an Environmental Protection Agency whos job is to find ways to allow even more pollution in a quest for quick corporate profits.
Edward Miessner Added Oct 16, 2017 - 12:42pm
opher, so now we're all flying completely blind!? So what's happening to the ongoing updating of the Keeling Curve? I heard Australia stopped its monitoring of atmpspheric CO2 a few years ago under PM Abbott. I know Trump proposed this in his budget, essentially, but that has to be passed by the US Congress and who knows what changes are made to it!? After all we can't stop monitoring the weather and climate data on a dime but once the US Govt does this (if they ever do) where will all the meterologists get their information? From foreign sources.
Edward Miessner Added Oct 16, 2017 - 12:43pm
Jeffry, duly noted the finger pointed at me. Problem for you is, you got three fingers pointed right back atcha. So thanks for the laugh! x^)
opher goodwin Added Oct 16, 2017 - 1:27pm
Bill - it is scary how the evidence is dismissed or deliberately undermined. Talk about fake news. People like Captain Pugwash are gullible clowns.
How did climate become political?
opher goodwin Added Oct 16, 2017 - 1:29pm
Edward - it is just plain daft isn't it? Whether you believe it or not the imperative must surely be to monitor closely what is going on.
Dino Manalis Added Oct 16, 2017 - 1:31pm
Be careful, Ireland and Britain, we have to develop a way to stop or prevent hurricanes  in order to save lives!
Bill H. Added Oct 16, 2017 - 2:00pm
 
Politics became part of the climate change "debate" when the oil companies realized that it would affect their profits.
William Stockton Added Oct 16, 2017 - 5:30pm
I read an article today that 18,000 penguins died because there was too much ice in Antarctica.  That wasn't funny in the least bit.  Poor penguins.  Too much ice = no food.
 
The funny part was hearing the Climate Cultists attribute the over-icing to global warming!
LOL
 
The cult-left have gone completely bat-shit crazy in their overheated brains.
opher goodwin Added Oct 16, 2017 - 5:54pm
Bill - and politicians realised there were votes to be had.
opher goodwin Added Oct 16, 2017 - 5:57pm
William - weather patterns get disturbed by warming conditions. It causes droughts, rain, cold and floods in local areas. You have to look at the big picture. But then it has to be catastrophic before people start taking note. Those penguins were a breeding colony. They simply did not breed this year. It's happened a few times.
Tubularsock Added Oct 16, 2017 - 7:04pm
Edward, great information but don't you worry. Once we bring back CLEAN COAL and black lung disease America will be great again. Then we can all rest in peace. As Alfred E. Neuman always said, "What, Me Worry?"
Jeff Michka Added Oct 16, 2017 - 7:18pm
Bill H sez: They have convinced themselves that everything is just fine, increasing CO2 is good for plants and other living things, and coal is the cleanest thing since Zest Soap.-Should have warned Edward of the futility of talking climate change on WB.  The only thing WB has more of than rightist climate change deniers are economists...AND Once we bring back CLEAN COAL. Some Trumpist said, last week, "the war on coal is over."  Guess that really means we've lost another war, like the wars on Drugs, Xmas and Xtainity...
William Stockton Added Oct 16, 2017 - 9:12pm
opher, "weather patterns get disturbed by warming conditions"
 
Weather patterns get disturbed by warming AND cooling conditions.
 
"You have to look at the big picture. "
 
You have to look at BOTH pictures.
 
"Those penguins were a breeding colony. They simply did not breed this year."
 
Ya, ok opher.  The birds just did see any reason to mate this year.  wtf are smoking?
Read the CNN article then.  I'm not going to quote it if you were too lazy to look it up yourself.  The ice was too thick.  Much like your head.
 
In 10,00 years, when the UK is under ice again, because we now sitting at the peak temperature in the interglacial period, the Brits, having moved back to the mainland, will still be saying "It is because of global warming!!".
 
Thomas Sutrina Added Oct 17, 2017 - 8:43am
Throw dice on a table enough and you will get two 6's, or any other combination.  Same goes for any probability activity.  Our author gave us examples that history has shown repeats of some features, 1878, 1886, and 1893.   We have also had ice ages occur in the past, more then one.  and thus warming periods between them.  
 
Our author is trying to make facts our of random patterns.  As we say in computer programing  trash in equals trash out.  The complexity and bells and whistles in the program does not change the results.  So far an accuracy less then a week before a hurricane hits the width of Florida just shows that predictions for much longer periods are just as inaccurate.   We in engineering world consider those analysis trash.
 
wsucram15 Added Oct 17, 2017 - 9:23am
I'd be curious to see what the ongoing studies of 20+ years show regarding Wiliams comments about the thicker ice.  They measure the ice at both Antarctic and Arctic and in the both areas, Greenland, etc, the Icecaps are melting, along with the thinning of the ice. 
Thats interesting, I will have to check that out.
Bill H. Added Oct 17, 2017 - 11:29am
 
This certainly shows that there are two exact opposite trains of thought on this subject, as many others. I have also noticed that over the last 50 years, people have become more separated in their ideals. One "side" in many cases does subscribe to the "Doomsday is right around the corner" theory, while the other "side" in many cases believes that we are in what is a "normal" climate cycle and that there is no way that humans are affecting the climate at all, and even that more CO2 in the atmosphere is good for plants, and therefore good for us!
It again verifies my observations that we are a society that is becoming more controlled by selective exposure. This Princeton study is a great read on the subject if you have some time.
William Stockton Added Oct 17, 2017 - 12:15pm
Bill H.  Humans do impact their environments.  No doubt. 
The question remains as to how much. 
 
If anyone is being intellectually honest about this subject, they must acknowledge that the argument and obscurity lie in quantifying this impact.  Admitting that the verdict is still open as to how much of an impact humans are having does not qualify us as being "deniers" or "anti-science".  
 
All it means is that we are being responsible scientists and willing to review all the data without fear-mongering or rationalizing current data to meet an expected future outcome . . . all to dishonestly prove a theory.
 
Edward Miessner Added Oct 17, 2017 - 1:18pm
opher, well they're going from dismissing or undermining the evidence to downright refusing to gather the evidence! Imagine if police departments acted in this manner.
 
Dino, geoengineering has unforseen and unforseeable consequences!
 
Bill H., exactly!
 
William, and these extremes are a part of global weirding! Too much ice in one locality yet for the whole of Antarctica, its extent is below average
 
Tubularsock, yep. ;^)
 
Jeff, yes, another war lost.
 
William, global warming into an ice age has happened before. Only last time it was due to the Milankovitch Cycles. 
 
Gotta run, guys, more later!
Bill H. Added Oct 17, 2017 - 1:22pm
William - Give the article I refer to a read. I think you and others may find out why people are so divided on this and many other subjects.
 
Thomas Sutrina Added Oct 17, 2017 - 1:35pm
The question is simple Bill H. can we make significant enough changes to the environment on the planet to significantly change the environment.  Cities do change the local climate.   A nuclear bomb air explosion does change a local climate for a short time.  But are we even on the scale of Krakatoa.  "In the year following the 1883 Krakatoa eruption, average Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 °C (2.2 °F).  Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888." Wikipedia: Bradley, Raymond S.; ‘The Explosive Volcanic Eruption Signal in Northern Hemisphere Temperature Records’; Climatic Change; 12 (1988) pp. 221–243.  
 
Bill H. even this event did not cause change for ever.   There is estimates of what a volcano puts into the air and the effect on the climate world wide and for how long.  We humans can not match it.  Those climate change advocates do not take into account that the planet also removes carbon dioxide and other gases from the air as a precipitate.  That is why volcanoes long term do not cause a climate change.  
 
The Sun is the most likely cause for climate change excluding an extinction impact.
Tubularsock Added Oct 17, 2017 - 8:04pm
What is exactly the debate. Shouldn’t we do everything possible to maintain the cleanest environment possible? Regardless the cause.
 
Do we make a mistake when we attempt to keep our air and our water and our land at the cleanest level possible?
 
And where is the harm in attempting to clean up the mess we make?
 
There are plenty of jobs to be had in cleaning thing up even if climate doesn’t change one way or another.
 
We ALWAYS seem to have plenty of borrowing power to blow things up but to clean things up there is always the complaint we haven’t enough money to spend on it.
 
Give Tubularsock a break here!
William Stockton Added Oct 17, 2017 - 9:53pm
Shouldn’t we do everything possible to maintain the cleanest environment possible? Regardless the cause.
 
Ok Tube.  Here is your do to list:
1) Stop buying anything for consumption.  It is all produced with fossil fuels in some way or another.
2) Forget heating your home in any way
3) Sell car
4) Buy a bicycle . . . oh wait.  That is also produced with fossil fuels
5) Don't buy a bicycle.  Walk everywhere
6) Make clothes out of naturally grown hemp.
7) Plant crops in yard
8) Plan for death early as nutrition will be shat and starvation likely.
 
Bill H. Added Oct 17, 2017 - 10:25pm
 
Tube - There is a "live for today" and "me first" attitude that prevails with many. I don't think that any logic whatsoever will change them.
Bill Kamps Added Oct 18, 2017 - 6:12am
Edward, while it is pretty obvious the temp is warming, using the number of hurricanes as "evidence" seems silly.  What if next year there no hurricanes, like in 2013? will that mean that the warming stopped?
 
Since the standard deviation on the number of hurricanes is larger than the average, this is a particularly unreliable indicator of anything.  This is especially true if we only count the number of hurricanes that make landfall in the US, or its territories.
 
Cherry picking statistics does nothing to help your cause.
 
Shouldn’t we do everything possible to maintain the cleanest environment possible? Regardless the cause.
 
As William points out, does this also mean regardless the cost, and regardless the inconvenience?  Who makes the rules on what we have to give up, especially given that politicians and the  rich will be exempt from the rules.  Al Gore, and Prince Charles are two of the largest advocates for reducing our carbon footprint.  They also have two of the largest individual carbon foot prints on the planet.  When Prince Charles starts tearing down some of his castles, and when Al Gore stops flying in his private jet and moves into a smaller house, then we will know these guys walk the walk. 
Mike Haluska Added Oct 18, 2017 - 12:24pm
Bill H -
 
Why is ONE SEASON of hurricane activity relevant while the PREVIOUS 12 YEAR DROUGHT (NO HURRICANES) is IRRELEVANT!!!!
 
Come on Opher, Bill H, etc. - answer the Frakkin question!  Why does 12 consecutive years of NO activity mean NOTHING to "Climate Change" proponents while ONE YEAR of activity is CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE???
 
Of course, none of you will answer because "Ra the Sun God" will curse you since you have begun worshipping at the "Climate Change Altar"!!! 
 
The scientific facts are that NEITHER CASE is "proof" of anything!  The Earth's climate changes over tens of thousands of years and a hundred year sample is MEANINGLESS!  We have only been tracking hurricane activity since 1851 so we have NO IDEA what hurricane activity was like prior!  For all we know compared to the period of 1765 thru 1812, this year is a "hurricane lull"!!!
opher goodwin Added Oct 18, 2017 - 12:45pm
Edward - now that the environment has been politicised you'd have to drown people in the rising sea levels before they would accept there was a hint of a problem.
opher goodwin Added Oct 18, 2017 - 12:47pm
Mike - climate change is gradual and is not linear. Local weather is no indication. Look at the recorded global temperatures. They do not lie.
opher goodwin Added Oct 18, 2017 - 12:50pm
Bill - Hurricanes are subject to a number of conditions - global warming being one. Hurricanes are more likely, but chance plays its part. We should expect more and more of them but other factors might prevail. You have to look at it over a period of time.
Edward Miessner Added Oct 18, 2017 - 3:13pm
Thomas, actually the signal of more extreme weather was discerned amidst all that noise beginning only several years ago. And my sampling is only a drop in the bucket. Here's a snapshot of the Atlantic Hurricane Seasons' bucket through last year 2016. Just a glance at the information will show you that the more recent decades (1990s, 2000s, 2010s) have more than their chronological fair share of records.
 
wsucram15, I've seen graphics of Arctic Ice thickness with two 3" x 3" images of the Arctic Circle showing year-over-year changes and even there I've seen localised areas of thicker ice for the more recent year in the midst of the general thinning out of the ice. So it's most unfortunate that those penguins found themselves in a thicker part of the ice down under, maybe the thickest.
 
Bill H, I've seen all that, too. And the selective exposure IMO is self-selected: one side will go to the cable TV and internet sources that they like, and the other side will go to the similar sources that they like in turn. This could end badly.
 
Edward Miessner Added Oct 18, 2017 - 3:25pm
Tubularsock, "We ALWAYS seem to have plenty of borrowing power to blow things up but to clean things up there is always the complaint we haven’t enough money to spend on it."
 
That's because the money is spent first, the money is borrowed by the central government to pay for it, then the taxes are collected to pay for a part of the debt issued.
 
Bill Kamps, what I said to Thomas above. And w/r/t William's reply to Tubularsock, I'm not advocating anything, just documenting the events as I see 'em. And there's a lot more I could report on but don't because I don't have a sufficient computer allotment of time (budget reasons).
 
Mike H, "Why is ONE SEASON of hurricane activity relevant while the PREVIOUS 12 YEAR DROUGHT (NO HURRICANES) is IRRELEVANT!!!!" Except there was no drought.
 
 
Edward Miessner Added Oct 18, 2017 - 3:27pm
opher, "now that the environment has been politicised you'd have to drown people in the rising sea levels before they would accept there was a hint of a problem"
 
Actually you'd have to choke them with poisonous hydrogen sulfide gas boiling out of the seas before they would accept this. ;^)
Edward Miessner Added Oct 18, 2017 - 3:30pm
Tubularsock, what I meant to say we don't have a money availability problem, we have certain politicians who say we have a money problem, then ignore what they just said when they vote on War Department spending.
John G Added Oct 18, 2017 - 9:38pm
Money is created by computer keystroke. Anyone telling you there's a shortage is lying.
Gone Away Added Oct 19, 2017 - 8:16am
Climate Change is a polarising subject and is dividing opinions on cause and effect.
The average layperson (like me) has to rely on the information we find through various media and for me, I have to side on the fact that human activity has contributed. How much? I don't know. I wrote a piece (another blog site) on what I had discovered on line. Some of it, (through Guy McPhereson studies and hypothesis) was extreme. I shall post it here again for you wolves to rip apart. I do think that it is important to discuss these issues.
Oh...and I do mention Veganism on that same blog (I am now ducking my head for the inevitable boots that will be thrown at it)!
 
Thanks for the share Edward!
Thomas Sutrina Added Oct 19, 2017 - 8:27am
Edward the problem is that your point in time is being used a proof of climate change in a particular direction.   The climate changes by the minute and a hurricane is a local event for a large area.  But it does not actually move the planet in a particular direction of climate.  It is just noise. 
Bill Kamps Added Oct 19, 2017 - 9:39am
Edward, Im not saying the Earth isnt getting warmer, Im just saying that using the number of hurricanes as evidence isnt particularly compelling, since their number varies a great deal under any circumstances. 
 
Yes it was Tubular who said, Shouldn’t we do everything possible to maintain the cleanest environment possible? Regardless the cause.
 
This of course is nonsense since cost and discomfort play a role, and who gets to decide these things is very important.
Mike Haluska Added Oct 19, 2017 - 11:29am
Edward - there were ZERO hurricanes to hit the US in the period I described.  Your data shows that overall during that period less than half the average appeared in the Atlantic.  You also refuse to acknowledge the fact that this data is WORTHLESS on geological time scale!  We also only have hurricane records since 1851, so how do we know the hurricane activity level 200, 500, 1,000, 10,000 or 30,000 years ago???  Let me guess - tree rings???? 
 
NOTHING you claim is based on legitimate science or is even statistically valid.  You want to take miniscule samples and project long term forecasts - that's just shitty science and math!
Mike Haluska Added Oct 19, 2017 - 11:37am
opher - your claim:
 
"now that the environment has been politicised you'd have to drown people in the rising sea levels before they would accept there was a hint of a problem."
 
is non-scientific, irrational and a poor attempt to "frighten" people to your position.  ALL of the politicization of this pseudo-science is on your side, not mine.  Yours is the side supported by $Billions in government grants.  Yours is the side that is benefitting financially from this crap.
 
and to flip your quote:
 
"now that decades of ridiculous "Imminent Doomsday Forecasts" have gone by with no accuracy can we drown these stupid notions in the naturally varying oceans and you can accept there is NO PROBLEM????
 
Edward Miessner Added Oct 19, 2017 - 2:18pm
John G, you certainly have that right!
 
Collettebytes, you're welcome! And I agree that Guy McPherson is just too extreme.
 
Thomas, that's why climate scientists who concentrate on observations sort out the noise and figure out the trend. There are multiple agencies, domestic and foreign, public and private, that have sussed out the signal trends from the noise and it's not pretty. I've already included an link to a Scientific American on signal versus noise in my last reply to you; it's the first link. Oh, and here's some more noise, tacked on at the end of an article about this past September by meterologist Dr. Jeff Masters of Weather Underground.
 
Bill Kamps, well, I call 'em as I see 'em. In that way I'm a little bit like Donald Trump. 
Well you call what Tubular said is nonsense but I just want to remind you, the environment is the collective of all real property, public and private and unclaimed property that nobody owns, plus the oceans where we get our seafood.
Also, "cost and discomfort play a role, and who gets to decide these things is very important." I would prefer that these decisions be made democratically myself, but it would probably take decisions by big governments to make them stick. And governments, no matter their size, tend to become corrupted by vested interests that don't have the common interest in mind. That's why I don't advocate doing anything, even though I'd like for something to be done.
 
Mike H, no, we don't know how many hurricanes there were before 1851, people can only make guesstimates, if that. Tree rings can't give you the number of any number of  hurricanes in any one year, but the learned paleoclimate scientists can figure out the general climactic data in any one area from one sampled tree's rings. Collect enough data and you can get a good estimation of general climactic conditions from the weighted mean averages. And there are other methods of obtaining data points, too. Oh, and zero hurricanes hitting the US shores does not mean there were zero hurricanes in the Atlantic. I remember during that 12-year so-called "drought" of "zero" hurricanes hitting US shores that Hurricane Gustav hit Louisiana (2008), Ike hit Galveston TX (2008), Isaac hit Louisiana (2012) and Sandy hit NJ (2012). I'm sure there's more but I don't remember them. And I'm not "tak[ing] miniscule samples and project[ing] long term forecasts." I'm only stating what's been going on so far. If you don't like it, it's too bad. Sorry!  ;^)
Mike Haluska Added Oct 19, 2017 - 3:26pm
Edward - just how old is the oldest tree found anywhere on Earth?  Maybe 2,000 years or so?  And your statement:
 
"Collect enough data and you can get a good estimation of general climactic conditions from the weighted mean averages. And there are other methods of obtaining data points, too."
 
is so full of holes it's worse than Swiss Cheese!  First of all, you are talking about PROXY DATA - not actual data!  All that a tree ring tells you is about how long the growing season relative to the other rings in that particular area.  Here's what actually happens:
1) a tree is selected and cut down
2) the rings are counted and measured with calipers
3) somebody "estimates" what the conversion coefficient is to convert tree ring width to average global temperature
4) the width of the ring is multiplied by the conversion coefficient to get the "estimated" average annual global temperature
 
So you have an imperfect measurement, an assumption that the width of a tree ring from a tree on one location on Earth having a linear function relationship with annual global Earth temperature, etc.  And you think this is legitimate science?  It is ENTIRELY DEPENDENT on:
 
1) a GUESS about tree ring width and average annual global temperature
2) an ASSUMPTION that there is linear relationship between the two
3) a GUESS as to what the conversion coefficient is
4) a SUPPOSITION that we can ignore the temperature of the Earth's oceans - which represent 70% of the Earth's surface and have NO representation in your "data collection techniques"
 
Yet despite all of the flat out guessing and number fudging, you believe these "Climate Scientists" when they tell you that 8,678 years ago the average annual Earth temperature was 75.8796 degrees F!!! 
 
"Learned Paleoclimate Scientists" my ass!!!  Ever heard of "significant digits"???  Familiar with statistical confidence intervals?  NO legitimate scientist would publish such nonsense!
 
Mike Haluska Added Oct 19, 2017 - 3:32pm
(cont) just to show you Frakkin' flawed that Proxy Data is, let's check the reliability and variability statistically:
Tree Ring Width (=/- .005 In)
Conversion Coefficient (it's a GUESS - somewhere between zero and infinity)
Oceanic Temperature Impact (an even BIGGER guess)
 
the overall accuracy is the product of all 3 - we can't even calculate it because the variability is totally full of unknowns!
opher goodwin Added Oct 19, 2017 - 4:47pm
Mike - the oldest tree is 3600 years old. They do a bore hole to measure rings. It gives a lot of data. They bore into ice going back millennia and can check gases. I worked on a core of mud dating back to glacial times. From microfossils I was able to determine climate change.
Science is very time consuming, very accurate and always cross checks.
Scientists gather huge quantities of evidence. I don't know why you are so skeptical of scientific knowledge. You use it every day.
opher goodwin Added Oct 19, 2017 - 4:48pm
Mike - try telling the elephants that it's all scare stories. They're not in danger at all.
opher goodwin Added Oct 19, 2017 - 4:49pm
Mike - tree rings are calculated accurately on microscopic sections with precise measurements. Callipers went out in the 19th century. 
Thomas Sutrina Added Oct 19, 2017 - 4:50pm
Edward if you believe, "Thomas, that's why climate scientists who concentrate on observations sort out the noise and figure out the trend. " then you must believe in NORAD's tracking of Santa Claus on radar. 
 
They can not figure out if a hurricane will hit the east or west coast of Florida three days ahead of time.  They could not sort out the noise and figure out the trend.   Same goes for every hurricane I can remember.  These same assumptions that go into the prediction of hurricane are made for the climate models predicting years from now.   
 
I have never seen the models used to go backwards and predict the measured climate that occurred in say 1940 thru 1945 in Europe.    Show me a good prediction.   They should be capable of going forward or backward with just as much accuracy.   Bet no paper for decades will be done on the accuracy of the models by going backwards.
Mike Haluska Added Oct 20, 2017 - 3:08pm
opher - your statement:
 
"Science is very time consuming, very accurate and always cross checks.
Scientists gather huge quantities of evidence. I don't know why you are so skeptical of scientific knowledge. You use it every day."
 
is problematic.  Gathering data isn't the problem - it's what is DONE with the data that causes all of the problems!  Who cares what instrument is used to measure tree ring samples and its associated "accuracy"?  Explain to me:
 
1) Where the Conversion Factor that takes a 0.105634 mm tree ring and produces an annual average Earth temperature comes from? 
 
2) How do you account for the millions of acres of Earth that have no trees or the 70% of the Earth's surface covered by water?  Do you think you can "extrapolate" the average annual Earth temperature data from a tree in Wyoming?
 
I hope your response won't be more of "scientists just know stuff and they can figure out the Conversion Factor with computers" or some other happy horse crap. 
Mike Haluska Added Oct 20, 2017 - 3:14pm
Thomas - thanks for your contribution.  How did "science" get to be so misunderstood and politicized by these frauds?  People like opher are just so impressed when they see a cool graph or chart and never ask simple, obvious questions like:
 
"How did the author of the report come up with the number 0.2256354 (or whatever) as the Conversion Factor?
Edward Miessner Added Oct 20, 2017 - 4:46pm
Mike H., "Yet despite all of the flat out guessing and number fudging, you believe these "Climate Scientists" when they tell you that 8,678 years ago the average annual Earth temperature was 75.8796 degrees F!!! 
 
"'Learned Paleoclimate Scientists' my ass!!!  Ever heard of "significant digits"???  Familiar with statistical confidence intervals?  NO legitimate scientist would publish such nonsense!"
 
You're setting up a strawman in order to knock it down. You got any proof on such exotic numbers in that strawman? You know, 8.678 years ago and 75.8796 deg F? Links, please.
Edward Miessner Added Oct 20, 2017 - 4:49pm
opher, thanks for your contribution. You're absolutely right on the method of taking tree boreholes to count the rings.
Edward Miessner Added Oct 20, 2017 - 4:54pm
Thomas, I'm not talking about the models going forward, I already indicated that the models are not accurate, even the climate scientists are baffled at the express appearance of weird weather when comparing it with the predictions in their old models. And of course, the temps are lagging behind, which is even more baffling!
Here is a good, if boring, lecture on climate change, how much is contributed by human-caused greenhouse gas forcings (7:15-11:00 in), and what can be attributed to global warming in any individual weird weather event.
Edward Miessner Added Oct 22, 2017 - 4:07pm
Okay guys and gals. I have a new post up. It's a bit of fluff this time as I continue to work on a review of Cato's Working paper No. 35.  
Mike Haluska Added Oct 23, 2017 - 12:24pm
 
Edward - your claim that my statement is a "strawman" argument:
 
"You're setting up a strawman in order to knock it down. You got any proof on such exotic numbers in that strawman? You know, 8.678 years ago and 75.8796 deg F? Links, please."
 
Misses my point!  Studies that use "Proxy Data" (e.g. data from prior to the invention of the thermometer such as Tree Rings) need to convert the measurements of the proxy to the desired metric.  The ASSUMPTION is that the width of the tree ring is millimeters is LINEARLY related to the Earth's average annual temperature.  
 
Not only is this a big IF, it is impossible to accurately determine the single numerical coefficient that converts tree ring width to the Earth's average annual temperature!  All that the scientists "know" is that for tree growth to occur the temperature range must be between 32 degrees F and 212 degrees F (liquid water).  That's a pretty wide margin to cover with a single conversion constant!!!
 
The four place decimal precision is cited in numerous climate studies and highlights the point I am making.  How in the hell can anyone legitimately claim they "know" or even come close to "knowing" what the Earth's average annual temperature was 500, 1,000, 10,000 or 50,000 years ago???     
  
Mike Haluska Added Oct 23, 2017 - 12:43pm
Edward - regarding your statement:
 
"Thomas, I'm not talking about the models going forward, I already indicated that the models are not accurate, even the climate scientists are baffled at the express appearance of weird weather when comparing it with the predictions in their old models."
 
This is simply verification of what I have been stating about "Climate Models" for years - they are fundamentally flawed and will NEVER be "accurate"!  Here's why using computers to model the climate is impossible:
 
1)  Forecasting models are dependent on seeking a linear relationship between what happened in the past and what will happen in the future.  They look at historical data and generate an "optimal" straight line going into the future.  Unfortunately, the climate is a "non-linear, non-deterministic, non-repeating, complex system". 
2)  Miniscule changes in initial conditions results in drastically different forecast results.  For instance, if your initial data point was 67.8 degrees F and during the next forecast run you change it 67.8003 degrees F, the forecast results will be dramatically different.  This is called the "Butterfly Effect".
3)  More computational power and more data results in an even more unreliable forecast.  The idea that Climate Models will get better as computers and data gathering methods improve is mathematically wrong.
 
The work of Dr. Edward Lorenz of MIT on this subject would be of great interest to you.
 
Edward Miessner Added Oct 24, 2017 - 3:22pm
Mike H, points taken and it's not that I am unaware of these things--at least the first two points (I have yet to find confirmation of that last one). And it's not like the climate scientists are unaware of them either. Hence that's why their models give ranges. The temperatures may not rise in accordance with the increase in CO2, but historical data shows that's the way to bet. 
Edward Miessner Added Oct 24, 2017 - 3:27pm
Well I googled that last point, and look what I found! Increased computer power does yield better models but the rate of improvement in accuracy is a lot slower than the rate of improvement in capability. Maybe that's why computer path forecasts still aren't perfect and never will be perfect, and that's why the NHC has that cone of uncertainty in their path forecasts.
Mike Haluska Added Oct 24, 2017 - 4:43pm
Edward - there's a teensy flaw in that puff-piece article on "Climate Model Accuracy".  If the accuracy of a climate model is based on how well the model reflects reality:
 
HOW IN THE HELL CAN ANYONE CLAIM THAT A CLIMATE MODEL IS "ACCURATE" 100 YEARS FROM NOW? 
 
Did they jump in a Time Machine with a thermometer and transport themselves to the year 2117, take a reading, then go "back in time" to the present and compare it to the forecasted temperature?  How gullible are you???
 
And when you talk about "ranges" of accuracy, look at the data for yourself - it's plus/minus 300%!  When legitimate scientists test their theory against reality, they dismiss the theory if the predicted data isn't within ACCEPTED EXPERIMENTAL ERROR.  NO LEGITIMATE SCIENTIST would accept +/- 300% as "acceptable experimental error"!!!  If you applied the error range of these "climate models" to tomorrow's temperature forecast, the weatherman would say "tomorrow's high temperature will be 87 degrees F with an error range of (-174 to 348).  Not exactly Nobel Prize winning forecasting, I would think.
 
Mike Haluska Added Oct 24, 2017 - 5:14pm
(cont)
Just to reinforce what I am saying about computer climate models, consider this.  The single largest variable directly affecting the temperature of the Earth is of course, the Sun.  The computer models can either assume either that:
1)  The output of the Sun is constant (obviously wrong - leading to inaccurate forecasts)
2)  The output of the Sun varies (obviously correct - but how does the programmer know when and how much to vary the Sun's output?)
 
Computer models are dependent on initial conditions - and are highly sensitive to the smallest change in initial conditions.  If the Sun's temperature changes even to the slightest amount and the exact temperature change isn't recorded at the exact time, the forecast output will change drastically.  If we can't know the Sun's output on August 23, 2076, how the hell can we forecast the Earth's temperature on January 1, 2117???
 
The computer model guys are clever at misdirection and try to claim that their historical forecast (e.g. 1970 to 2010) matched actual data within 0.006% or some crap.  What they don't tell you about are the thousands of forecast runs they made playing with the variable coefficients until they finally got a run to "look decent". 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5Hv6-oJEqI
Check the video below at the 15:00 minute mark - you'll understand why we will NEVER be able to forecast the climate, no matter how many measurements are taken or how powerful computers get.
Edward Miessner Added Oct 25, 2017 - 1:54pm
You call the Yale article a "puff piece", eh? Well you missed something in the article. Climate scientists who model the future don't aim to replicate the weather 30, 60, 100 years out. They are looking for averages: global means. And then others weigh in to predict what to expect in the way of weather, roughly and generally I would presume. What I have seen are the expected global mean temperatures and sea-level rises---the lines are the mean averages of all the averages generated by all the models created to make predictions and if the presenter is on the ball, he would have a pale color or grey-shaded field on either side of the line to give us an expected 95% range of averages (lowest 2-1/2% of model outputs to highest 97-1/2% of model outputs). You can see an example in the Cato Working Paper No. 35. These ranges are similar to the ranges of the two diverging traces in Edward Lorenz's computer's output---see 16:28 through 17:24 of the video you linked, thank you very much. Note there are minima that are hit, and there are maxima that are hit. Draw a line between the minima, and another between the maxima, and you have a range in-between. Simple as that.
 
You are confusing weather with climate. Weather is the day-to-day, minute-by-minute in the variability of the climate. Climate is the prevailing weather conditions over a long period of time.
 
One last thing: it seems our observed temperatures have finally caught up with one of the models!
Mike Haluska Added Oct 25, 2017 - 4:10pm
Edward - you are one confused fellow!
 
"Note there are minima that are hit, and there are maxima that are hit. Draw a line between the minima, and another between the maxima, and you have a range in-between. Simple as that."
 
You are describing a linear regression - which only works with LINEAR, DETERMINISTIC, REPEATING SYSTEMS.  Climate is non-linear, non-deterministic, non-repeating!  Besides - if you look at the range between the min & max you'll find that margin of error is USELESS!  That is what the IPCC concluded about computer models. 
 
"One last thing: it seems our observed temperatures target="_blank">have finally caught up with one of the models!"
 
You think one model out of thousands that got "lucky" is a scientific breakthrough???  If you changed a single data point by .002 degrees F the entire forecast would change!  Besides - just how does anyone determine the "average Earth temperature to 5 decimal place accuracy?  Are you looking at the scales on these "forecasts"?  Have you ever heard of the term "significant digits"?
 
People like you become overly impressed and convinced when they see a computer graphic of Florida sinking into Atlantic, Polar Ice melting and assume that fancy graphics that are PRE-PROGRAMMED are "science"!
 
Mike Haluska Added Oct 25, 2017 - 4:15pm
(cont)
 
And "scientists" bragging about getting a 10 year climate forecast correct is meaningless!  You just admitted that climate changes over long periods of time - 10 years in geological terms is a blink of an eye!  Using 30 years of climate data to predict the climate 100 years from now is like looking at 3 frames in the middle of a 2 hour film and predicting how the movie will end!
Edward Miessner Added Oct 26, 2017 - 5:27pm
Mike H., ENOUGH.
 
"You are describing a linear regression - which only works with LINEAR, DETERMINISTIC, REPEATING SYSTEMS.  Climate is non-linear, non-deterministic, non-repeating!"
 
No, but it stays within certain parameters unless forced to do otherwise. That's what the minima and the maxima and connecting the dots are all about, and that's what your global warming denialism depends on.
 
"You think one model out of thousands that got "lucky" is a scientific breakthrough???"
 
Maybe not, but it's progress. I admit, the models are running hot and could stand to use some work. But the IPCC in 2012 came out with a prediction for a likely range for annual global maen temperatures through 2035 which leaves enough room for the pause to continue through '35, had the Earth chosen to make it so.
 
"If you changed a single data point by .002 degrees F the entire forecast would change!"
 
That's for the bloody weather. The overall climate stays the same unless otherwise forced.
 
"Besides - just how does anyone determine the "average Earth temperature to 5 decimal place accuracy?"  
 
Are you bloody sure they're determining those to that precision? You're extrapolating the random (or not-random) numbers Dr Lorenz plugged into his computer and assuming climate scientists---and meteorologists can be called climate scientists, too, after a fashion---do the exact same thing for the global mean temperature. I'd stick to tenth of a decimal point myself, that's how I find the temperatures in my local weather forecast are presented. But the climate scientists, both predictive and observational, usually present their temps in two-decimal point precision and I'm sure they have a damn good reason, and not the ones you impute to them.
 
 
Edward Miessner Added Oct 26, 2017 - 5:28pm
Mike H. (cont.)
 
 
"Are you looking at the scales on these 'forecasts'?  Have you ever heard of the term 'significant digits'?"
 
I sure am and I sure do.
 
"People like you become overly impressed and convinced when they see a computer graphic of Florida sinking into Atlantic, Polar Ice melting and assume that fancy graphics that are PRE-PROGRAMMED are 'science'!"
 
Florida sinking into the Atlantic, well that's a graphic of a predicted future that Al Gore used. Don't know how soon that'll happen because IANACS. The graphics for the Polar Ice Melting are pre-programmed from data obtained from the NSIDC and/or other established instuitutions that gather data.
 
Now how about you and all the fancy graphics that "show" that climate change just ain't happening?
Edward Miessner Added Oct 26, 2017 - 5:28pm
Mike H. (cont.)
 
 
"And 'scientists' bragging about getting a 10 year climate forecast correct is meaningless!  You just admitted that climate changes over long periods of time - 10 years in geological terms is a blink of an eye!"
 
Thirty years is a long period of time in my book. So is ten years in real time, but climate change is "not supposed to happen over ten years," and yet it is. Prof. Richard Alley in his book, The Two-Mile Time Machine, noted that the climate could change (or did change at least in Greenland) a lot in the space or two years or less. Even your co-deniers were shouting about a "decline" in surface temps after 1998, saing the climate was cooling, and as recently as 2012. 2013 came and it mutated into a pause.  But the real reality is that the "decline" ended in 2011 and the temps have risen ever since through 2016.
 
"Using 30 years of climate data to predict the climate 100 years from now is like looking at 3 frames in the middle of a 2 hour film and predicting how the movie will end!"
 
Except 30 + 100 gives 130, about the length of a long 2-hour film. So the correct analogy would be the first 30 minutes of the film. But given how the temperatures have been rising since the 1900s and how atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising since 1850, climate science can make a fairly good estimation of how the script is going to end. This article shows we have enough to know what the heck is going on. The climate is changing.
 
So, enough already Mike. I know how you're going to reply and I'm going to monitor all your comments that I can from here on out.
opher goodwin Added Oct 28, 2017 - 6:38am
Mike - my point is that there is incontrovertible evidence that warming has occurred. The effects of that are mounting up storm after storm, flood after flood, hurricane after hurricane.
It seems to me that we should be monitoring this closely and doing something about it.
Edward Miessner Added Oct 28, 2017 - 12:52pm
opher - and it's also showing up in the global mean temperature record, albeit at a pace lower than that forecast by most of the models. Thanks.
 
PS here is a list of New England Hurricanes, from the Wikipedia. There are separate tables for landfalling hurricanes and other tropical cyclones, but the full list includes sideswiping ones as well: one in the 17th Century, five in the 18th, fourteen in the 19th, five in the 20th, and as of this Halloween seven in the 21st so far. That would make for about forty-two such storms for this whole century, assuming the tropical cyclone genesis and routing maintains this pace (not guaranteed).
Edward Miessner Added Oct 28, 2017 - 12:55pm
PPS This is the seventh tropical cyclone to landfall upon or sideswipe New England this century.
Mike Haluska Added Oct 31, 2017 - 5:00pm
opher - did warming, cooling, not-warming, not-cooling occur BEFORE humans existed?  Yes - which means climate change has been going on for millions of years without ANY influence of human activity.  Why NOW is "Climate Change" something we can "do something about"????
 
and by the way, there is "incontrovertible data" that shows cooling. 
Mike Haluska Added Oct 31, 2017 - 5:35pm
Some advice from a Nobel Laureate in Physics that sums up what I am trying to say:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM&t=520s
 
Edward Miessner Added Nov 1, 2017 - 2:49pm
Mike, I told you I was going to monitor your comments. I have seen to many climate change science papers to be convinced that climate science is anything other than a hard science. That 97% of climate scientists believe in anthropocene global warming does not matter---they go by the established facts and the established data. Now I will view what that nobel laureate has to say. If he is as hysterical as you accuse me of being--and as hysterical as you came off as in those two posts I sent to perdition--then I need not listen to him.
Mike Haluska Added Nov 2, 2017 - 3:46pm
 
Edward - don't worry about Ivar Giaever coming off as "hysterical"!!!  You'll understand why I am laughing right now! 
Edward Miessner Added Nov 3, 2017 - 2:30pm
No, I found him to be entirely unlistenable and not understandable. Bad sound system, thick accent, older guy slurring his speech as older people tend to do even when sober. Please link a transcript.