Home/BlogAs the 2015 Atlantic hurricane season nears its end, and as we enter the 11th year without a major hurricane (Cat3+) strike in the U.S., let’s look at how 2015 has shaped up.
Here are the cumulative number of North Atlantic hurricanes by calendar date for 2015, 2014, and 2005:
Those who are old enough to remember might recall that after the devastating 2005 season (remember Katrina?), this was going to be the “new normal” for Atlantic hurricane activity due to global warming. There were 15 hurricanes that year. The next year (2006) the bottom dropped out. The National Hurricane Center expected system after system to strengthen, and it almost never happened.
To update an old saying, “global warming is what you expect; weather is what you get.” This year we have had only three hurricanes so far. Tropical Storm Kate just formed this morning near the Bahamas, but it is not expected to reach hurricane strength and should remain offshore of the U.S. mainland.
Has there been any long term trend in Atlantic tropical cyclone activity? If so, it has been slightly downward. Here is Ryan Maue’s plot of the “Power Dissipation Index” since 1950, akin to his tropical “Accumulated Cyclone Energy” (ACE) index for the Atlantic, which monitors the total 3-D wind energy contained in tropical cyclones. It shows that the current lull in activity matches the lull back in the late 1970s and early 1980s:
I believe it was in the 1980s when the Director of the National Hurricane Center, Neil Frank, testified in congress that the lull in hurricane activity in the ’70s and ’80s had made people complacent, and people should expect an upturn in activity.
What was Dr. Frank’s reason for the warning? Global warming expectations? No, it was natural climate variations.
Neil Frank is now one of “us”…scientists who believe the human component of climate change — to the extent it exists — is not dangerous.
Now, it is true that global average tropical cyclone activity has increased again in the last year or so. But it remains to be seen whether this has anything to do with warmer temperatures or a long-term trend, since there are many conditions which must be satisfied for a tropical cyclone to form and intensify…not just ocean temperatures being a fraction of a degree higher.
The Atalntic is only part of the story… here is the rest…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/10/20/el-nino-fueling-most-extreme-tropical-cyclone-season-on-record-in-northern-hemisphere/
And before I hear… “Oh yes but that is just El Nino”… it is also a taste of what waits for us in a warming world
Simon, you are wasting your citing alarmist claptrap from the WaPo on this blog. Take it to sks or HotWhopper, where you have the true believers- your type, Simon.
Wasting your “time” I meant.
In typical Alarmist fashion, Simon ignores the BIG natural cycle factors in favor of an AGW alarmist one.
From the article HE linked, note the BIG certain factors and the possible little factor:
While El Niño, in particular, has spurred the hyper activity in the Pacific, a blob of warm water in the central Pacific, somewhat independent from El Niño has also contributed. Klotzbach attributed the warm water there to the Pacific meridional mode, a cyclical pattern.
Global warming may also be playing some role in the intensity attained by these storms. Ocean temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere have ranked warmest on record year-to-date, 1.4 degrees above the long-term average.
Sigh.
I hope you get paid to post such inane non-sense, Simon. They should pay you to read instead, because you obviously commented without doing so.
The point is it is meaningless doing a little dance around the table about a predicted lower than normal Atlantic season when the rest of the planet is breaking records…. unless you want to deceive the stupid.
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” ― Socrates
Exactly!!! Please stop calling me an alarmist. Realist is more accurate.
Hi Simon,
Nah, ‘alarmist’ suits just fine.
Simon says:
“Exactly!!! Please stop calling me an alarmist. Realist is more accurate.”
Great point! Realistically, your an alarmist! Is that better?
Have a great day!
Re the name calling refer to Bohdan Burban’S helpful post.
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” ― Socrates
Yep, it’s slanderous to call Simon Hoosit anything but alarmist. He has, in fact, admitted it.
John and mpainter,
I take personal issue with attacks or slander on the religion of others. So would you be so kind as to leave Simon (obviously a true believer) alone to his beliefs?
Religion is just a collection of ideas, not more sacrosanct than any other ideas….
Well, the data is in and it’s conclusive: lowered Atlantic Hurricane activity correlates (at 95% confidence) with increased atmospheric CO2- another benefit to add to the growing list of benefits enjoyed by humankind from fossil fuels.
mpainter
Typical “stonewaller.” Only interested in looking at the small bits of the picture to prove his dishonest point. Sure Atlantic hurricanes down, but that was forecast as was the increase in Pacific hurricanes. Exactly what we are seeing and what we continue will see in warming world. You need 26C for hurricanes to form. When you have an increased area of the planet at that temp you get more hurricanes. Not rocket science.
Well, well, Dr Spencer says one thing and somebody who refuses to identify himself says another. Whom to believe?
Dr Roy is not saying I’m wrong. He’s saying that Atlantic hurricanes are at a low level and he is right…. it is just a part of the picture.
The trend:
http://policlimate.com/tropical/north_atlantic_hurricane.png
You omitted the last five years of data, David. Trying to sneak another one by, again
Simon, kind of right. Except that right now there is no evidence that there is any kind of picture. I recall Kerry Emanuel recently stating that there is no recongnizable GW/SST cyclone activity correlation except in the atlantic. Which may have more to do stadium wave processes (various quasi-cyclical ocean and atmospheric patterns) than ghg heat, especially sinse the rest of the world says the opposite/nothing yet.
In the late 90s the financial engineering and re-insurance industries were really hopeful find to global warming signals to sell financial tools. What does it say about the future economic impacts that 20 years later there is still signal. Financial Engineering News, like evidense of global warming damages they expected to see any minute, doesn’t exist anymore. Warren Buffet will also tell you what global warming means to insurance, nothing a useful marketing gimick to get people to over pay.
How much more confident do you think Emanuel is that global warming will increase atlantic hurricanes than he was a couple of years ago?
“Sure Atlantic hurricanes down, but that was forecast..
###
Forecast? Because of increasing CO2? Must be a high degree of correlation, maybe more than 95% confidence. Maybe 97.6%. Wonderful stuff, that CO2. Thank goodness for fossil fuels.
I don’t know if you are just acting stupid or you just want me to do your work for you. All to do with wind shear. Read all about it…
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/keynotes/keynotes_0715_windshear.html
Let’s see. Simon says of me that I’m a “stonewaller”, that I’m dishonest, and that I’m acting stupid. He says these things so that others will know that he is a real climate scientist.
“He says these things so that others will know that he is a real climate scientist.”
No, not a scientist, just in tune with reality.
“Not a scientist.”
Not a scientist. Did I have to say it twice.
Apparently so. And confirmation of suspicions was rewarding. Thanks for being so open.
Simon says:
“No, not a scientist, just in tune with reality.”
What tune would that be? Theme music to Hitchcock’s “The Birds” possibly? Reality according to whom? You? Rather subjective don’t you think?
Have a great day!
Simon,
The NOAA article points out that how wind shear affects tropical cyclones is theoretical at this stage, and based only on a “simple” mathematical model, does it not?
It says, “Using a simple mathematical model, researchers can estimate the degree to which the center of the storm becomes vertically tilted based on the cloudiness within the eyewall, as well as the structure of the wind outside the eyewall. By modeling the development of storm tilt, a better understanding of a tropical cyclone’s behavior is gained in the presence and absence of wind shear.
And it admits that the models only “show promise.” “These model simulations show promise in understanding the fundamental physical processes driving intensity and structural changes of tropical cyclones due to environmental factors.”
The actual instrument that will collect the empirical data needed to verify the mathematical model has only this year been employed: “Doppler wind lidar instrument added to NOAA’s hurricane hunter aircraft this season will assist AOML researchers in collecting observational data to better understand the wind environment around tropical cyclones. The lidar instrument is used to collect, process, and transmit atmospheric data from within a hurricane, enabling NOAA to sample the winds inside the eyewall of storms. By leveraging observational expertise and new data combined with modeling, AOML researchers hope to learn more about the wind environment and the interaction between wind shear and tropical cyclones, allowing them to better predict a hurricane’s future activity and intensity.”
So it appears to me, from NOAA’s own statements, that the wind shear theory has yet to be proved empirically.
The increasing trend in North Atlantic tropical storms and hurricanes:
http://policlimate.com/tropical/north_atlantic_hurricane.png
You omitted the last five years again, David, as per your usual tactics. Put those in for a decreasing trend.
Let me explain something. It takes more than just warm water to generate a hurricane. First they must nucleate and then develop under favorable conditions. Next steering winds must not carry them too quickly onto cooler water. 26 deg C is barely enough to sustain even a weak hurricane. The southern jet stream must be weak. Otherwise, like under current conditions an enhanced southern jet (being caused by the El Nino) produces strong sheer in the upper troposphere that knocks the tops off towering cumulus and prevents a strong cell from developing at the center of the disturbance.
On the other hand strong northeasters, for example, cause consistently more shoreline damage along the US East-coast than do hurricanes. These extra-tropical storms are comparatively frequent on an annual basis, but do not get the same attention from the MSM. In a warming climate with warming ocean surface waters strong northeasters will tend to become less, not more frequent, and the damage they cause by flooding and shoreline erosion will diminish accordingly. This is not hypothetical, if warming continues far into the future. But the only remaining “evidence” for continued warming and its alleged risks is the GCM outputs. And those constructs have proven themselves completely unreliable to date.
HL Mencken
Hello H L Mencken,
This never prevents climate frauds from making money. You might ask Al Gore for confirmation on that.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.
H. L. Mencken
Don’t overestimate the decency of the human race.
H. L. Mencken
Have a great day!
This link attempts to explain the impact of El Niño on both Atlantic and Pacific hurricanes:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/impacts-el-niño-and-la-niña-hurricane-season
HLM you say “On the other hand strong northeasters, for example, cause consistently more shoreline damage along the US East-coast than do hurricanes.”
####
True. For example, the barrier islands off North Carolina. These are very susceptible to wave and current and it is the Atlantic storms of the fall and winter, and not the tropical cyclones,that have the most pernicious effect. There have been communities washed away by these ever encroaching storm effects. In contrast, the Gulf coast barrier islands are much more stable because the Gulf of Mexico is a very placid sea, with only the occasional hurricane to raise the surf. Beach erosion is usually very slight or non existent, except where constructions, jetties, etc., have altered the shore processes.
So the truth comes out, and the alarmist hype slinks away. But it is like swatting at a swarm of mosquitoes.
Hi mpainter,
You stated:
“So the truth comes out, and the alarmist hype slinks away. But it is like swatting at a swarm of mosquitoes.”
Nine times out of ten, in the arts as in life, there is actually no truth to be discovered; there is only error to be exposed.
H. L. Mencken
Have a great day!
I haven’t seen an actual study (non-models) showing CO2 and atmospheric temperature are closely related. There are studies showing health and well being are highly correlated with energy use.
Both the 97% consensus and the 2 C. degree tipping point have been shown to be numbers fetched from the æther. Ice on the Arctic Ocean seems to still be there, as are the Polar Bears. Atmospheric catastrophe is reportedly going to happen “real soon now” as was the case last year, 5 years ago, 25 years, and, I think back to the Stone Age. [There are lists.]
The things of this world [plants, animals, and structures] are in danger from religious extremists, the UN & fellow travelers. Structures, animals, and plants are being degraded because (so called) leaders focus on “social justice” using the climate scam as an excuse. Meanwhile, things burn, explode, and die. Such is the terrible time we live in.
If you really think there is no correlation between CO2 and temp, you need to Listen to this guy talk. He is without doubt one of the foremost experts in the field. The evidence is beyond doubt. Could be the best hour you spend in your life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g
Alley is as much ‘programmed’ with ‘CO2 causes warming’ as the ‘best’ of ‘failed’ computer models. He suggests no mechanism other than massive decorrelation. Wonderfully entertaining.
CO2 does cause warming. Do you really think there is any doubt about this in the scientific community? There is not….
The late warming was due to reduction in cloud albedo, David, not CO2.
CO2 does not cause warming, Davie. Your pseudoscience fails you again.
So you must believe that CO2 doesn’t absorb infrared radiation — a fact known since at least 1861.
“On the Absorption and radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction,” John Tyndall, Philosophical Magazine Series 4, 22, 169-194, 273-285 (1861).
And if you are still not convince have a listen to Richard Muller. The man skeptics all believed was going to once and for all prove those scientists wrong. In fact Anthony Watts was ready to accept any result that came from the BEST study. That was until what they found was not to AW’s liking so he reneged and went back to his denying reality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sme8WQ4Wb5w
The greatest benefit of the modern age is inexpensive, plentiful and readily available energy and all other benefits of our times flow from this one benefit. This means using fossil fuels, which do not pollute if certain safeguards are employed.
The latest NASA report shows that Anarctic ice mass has been increasing this century. Another positive correlation with increasing CO2. So much for your heroes.
The latest Nasa report…. bah blah blah. So what, the planet is losing ice and that is the gauge you should be using. It’s like the hurricane thing in the Atlantic. So what if they have dropped. Don’t for a second think that means all is well. 2015 is looking like setting records for temperature (a certainty now) and for hurricanes in the northern hemisphere. Back to the ice. Antarctic ice is extremely difficult to be sure about. The latest GRACE data say it is losing ice.
And no one is denying that fossil fuels have been good for the modern age…. until now. It seems it comes at a price and the more we look the more that price is rising.
Hi Simon,
Your statement seems all told rather silly. You state:
“So what, the planet is losing ice and that is the gauge you should be using.”
So what not many thousands of years ago polar ice caps likely didn’t exist. The apparent fact that we’re still in an ice-age and slightly warming shouldn’t be too alarming, unless of course your predisposed to climate panic. Not to be outdone in silliness, you go on:
“It’s like the hurricane thing in the Atlantic. So what if they have dropped. Don’t for a second think that means all is well.”
What precisely is less well about the Earth’s climate than say the 19th century or any other period for that matter? Around 1815 the Indonesian volcano Mount Tambora blew and had a devastating effect on the climate:
“Mount Tambora, also called Mount Tamboro, Indonesian Gunung Tambora ,
Tambora, Mount [Credit: NASA/JSC]
volcanic mountain on the northern coast of Sumbawa island, Indonesia, that in April 1815 exploded in the largest volcanic eruption in recorded history. It is now 2,851 metres (9,354 feet) high, having lost much of its top in the 1815 eruption. The volcano remains active; smaller eruptions took place in 1880 and 1967, and episodes of increased seismic activity occurred in 2011, 2012, and 2013.
Tambora’s catastrophic eruption began on April 5, 1815, with small tremors and pyroclastic flows. A shattering blast blew the mountain apart on the evening of April 10. The blast, pyroclastic flows, and tsunamis that followed killed at least 10,000 islanders and destroyed the homes of 35,000 more. Before its eruption Mount Tambora was about 4,300 metres (14,000 feet) high. After the eruption ended, a caldera spanning some 6 km (3.7 miles) across remained.
Many volcanologists regard the Mount Tambora eruption as the largest and most-destructive volcanic event in recorded history, expelling as much as 150 cubic km (roughly 36 cubic miles) of ash, pumice and other rock, and aerosols—including an estimated 60 megatons of sulfur—into the atmosphere. As that material mixed with atmospheric gases, it prevented substantial amounts of sunlight from reaching Earth’s surface, eventually reducing the average global temperature by as much as 3 °C (5.4 °F). The immediate effects were most profound on Sumbawa and surrounding islands. Some 80,000 people perished from disease and famine, since crops could not grow. In 1816, parts of the world as far away as western Europe and eastern North America experienced sporadic periods of heavy snow and killing frost through June, July, and August. Such cold weather events led to crop failures and starvation in those regions, and the year 1816 was called the “year without a summer.””
Hmmh! A massive global temperature reduction of 3-5 degrees centigrade leads to massive disease and famine and you think you have it bad now? Any massive famine’s lately other than political ones like North Korea’s a few years back? Any massive crop failures or pendemics? Perhaps if you had your way… You might read up on Jacques Cousteau he wanted to eliminate about 2/3’s of the population to make it sustainable. These warm pleasant climates it’s enough to make a genocidal eco-whacko cringe! Attempting to be empirical you state:
“2015 is looking like setting records for temperature (a certainty now) and for hurricanes in the northern hemisphere.”
By which data source? You go on:
“Back to the ice. Antarctic ice is extremely difficult to be sure about. The latest GRACE data say it is losing ice.”
If Antarctic ice is “extremely difficult” what makes ice anywhere else so easy? Perhaps other claims simply better fit your narrative. You conclude:
“And no one is denying that fossil fuels have been good for the modern age…. until now. It seems it comes at a price and the more we look the more that price is rising.”
The first part proves false in that many eco-whackos have always disliked using hydrocarbons and believed it to be some Faustian bargain. As to hydrocarbons being fossil fuels, that’s a belief system the science doesn’t often support it. While coal certainly appears to be, much of the deep petroleum finds don’t lack the carbon 13 isotope and therefore cannot be a FOSSIL FUEL! Moreover, natural gas (80% methane) is of VOLCANIC ORIGIN! So unless you believe T-Rex hung around bathing inside open magma pools and diving into wavy caldera’s it seems unlikely. As to the price what price have you paid? You spend inordinate amounts of time raving against warming on websites like this one on a web-network fueled by hydrocarbons. You eat, move and breath amply supplied with energy from the same. Yet you appear disgruntled that other people do the same. Would you rather go back to bio-mass incineration? Or just look the other way and buy a solar panel built in a facility powered by hydrocarbons? Seemingly sad!
Have a great day!
Hi Simon,
One other point regarding natural gas. Years ago Astrophysicist Thomas Gold theorized that iron oxide, calcite and water could combine to form hydrocarbon methane CH4 at temperature and pressure levels found deep within the Earth. Sandia Labs later confirmed this experimentally.
Just a further note: Humanity would likely be better off by Al Gore standards burning methane for energy than letting it seep into the atmosphere as it routinely does now. Methane is a far stronger GHG than CO2.
Have a great day!
JohnKl
I really have nothing I could possibly say that would do justice to your creative writing…. except…. have a nice day.
Hi Simon,
You state:
“I really have nothing I could possibly say that would do justice to your creative writing…. except…. have a nice day.”
It wasn’t merely creative writing, however I do retain the right to order my words. Your problem remains with the evidence, which I noticed you ignored. Don’t worry I didn’t expect you to address them.
Have a great day!
JohnKl says:
“So what not many thousands of years ago polar ice caps likely didn’t exist.”
When was that?
Have a great day!
Hi David Appell,
Since from my understanding the carbon 14 isotope appears ubiquitous throughout the ice sheets and since the isotope has an ~5568-5700 year half life the ice sheet should be no older than 35-50K years since after 6-9 half lives it should undetectable. I’ve read the theoretical limit being 100k years but such detection would be very doubtful. C14 analysis of ice cores shows young dates indeed:
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/viewFile/16320/pdf
Moreover, DNA analysis of permafrost has indicated ages of ~5k years if I remember correctly. In any case C14 also proves ubiquitous among the hydrocarbon gasses suggesting young ages their as well. Moreover, you have those strange claims of dinosaur soft tissue testing positive for C14 as well. Will wonders never cease.
Have a great day!
Hi mpainter,
“The greatest benefit of the modern age is inexpensive, plentiful and readily available energy and all other benefits of our times flow from this one benefit. This means using fossil fuels, which do not pollute if certain safeguards are employed.”
It depends on how you define pollute. The California Supreme Court thinks atmospheric plant food pollutes. If you define ambient heat as pollution even solar cells pollute. Anyone can play with language and throw words around. The question remains what costs and benefits do any particular energy source possess and should rational individuals be free to choose among alternatives? The rational answer to the last question is yes. The eco-whacko’s apparently have a different answer.
Have a great day!
The US Supreme Court ruled that CO2 is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act (Mass. v EPA 2007).
Nope. They ruled the EPA had the authority to declare CO2, the plant food, a pollutant. We know that it must be true, because Obumma sez so too.
Hi David Appell,
You state:
“The US Supreme Court ruled that CO2 is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act (Mass. v EPA 2007).”
Yes David, we know that. So what? It could just as sensibly declare that any other gas compound is a pollutant. Declaring a chemical compound essential to most life on the planet a pollutant seems to be an arbitrary political decision. Why not declare Oxygen a pollutant? Too high an atmospheric concentration can lead to phenomenon such as spontaneous combustion. If animal exhalations are pollutants why not plant exhalations? I suppose it depends on which species you ask? Last I checked CO2 is not a poison, but I understand you may worry about the protein content of your pasta.
Have a great day!
mpainter says:
“Nope. They ruled the EPA had the authority to declare CO2, the plant food, a pollutant. We know that it must be true, because Obumma sez so too.”
The ruling came during the Bush Jr administration.
John: Why would the Supreme Court have ruled that oxygen is a pollutant?
I realize that Mass v EPA 2007 is not a decision that deniers much like. Nonetheness, it stands.
Ah, yes. The case wherein the EPA argued before the US Supreme Court that CO2 was not a pollutant. Things changed under the obumma administration, but things have a way of changing do they not?
To go along with the South Pole’s repudiation of the AGW hoax, the Greenland ice sheet has been setting records this year. “More” ice and snow is even worse for the Warmists than just a pause.
But, what was really funny was the mention of Anthony Watts and Richard Muller. Watts and Muller are really on the same page. They both make a living by keeping the hoax alive. They both believe CO2 is warming the planet. So, you think they are enemies, but they are probably laughing at you behind your back, as they “rake it in”! (My guess is Anthony’s annual income probably exceeds Richard’s.)
No doubt about it, Anthony laughs all the way to bank. He, for one, has managed to turn the climate hype to good advantage.
So let me get this right… you think Anthony Watts runs his website for the money? Has the world gone topsy turvy?
Simon says:
“So let me get this right… you think Anthony Watts runs his website for the money? Has the world gone topsy turvy?”
How much time, effort and expense would you put into a website or any effort without expectation of a return on your investment? Do you seriously believe Muller and other expect little if any return? A gentlemen asked an attractive blond would you make love to me for a millions dollars? She said of course. He followed her answer with would you make love to me for one dollar? She feigned disgust and asked what kind of girl do you think I am? He answered we’ve already established that we’re simply dickering over the price now. Likewise, who do you imagine your eco-wacko warriors to be?
Don’t overestimate the decency of the human race.
H. L. Mencken
Have a great day!
Simon, do you attempt to reason through the details of the arguments or do you merely report the findings of others who you ‘trust’ to speak for you?
Is it not obvious? He imbibes “talking points” at sks and brings them here. When he is required to support his points, he can’t, and resorts to name calling instead. Watch.
Great points. He seemed concerned that Anthony Watts might be making money somewhere, somehow. It would be fascinating to know if some centralized financial source pays people to post nonsensical propaganda on web-blogs.
Have a great day!
Yes, Anthony Watts has taken money:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/04/anthony-watts-admits-to-taking-money.html
“This means using fossil fuels, which do not pollute if certain safeguards are employed.”
Balderdash.
Generating power with coal and oil creates more damage than value-added, according to Yale economist William Nordhaus in a 2011 paper:
“Environmental Accounting for Pollution in the United States Economy,” Nicholas Z. Muller, Robert Mendelsohn, and William Nordhaus, American Economic Review, 101(5): 1649–75 (2011).
http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.101.5.1649
Summarizing that paper’s findings: for every $1 in value that comes from coal-generated electricity, it creates $2.20 in damages.
Total damages: $70 billion per year (in 2012 dollars).
Petroleum-generated electricity is even worse: $5.13 in damages for $1 in value.
The National Academy of Sciences estimated that fossil fuel use causes damages of at least $120 B/yr to health and the environment:
“Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use”
National Research Council, 2010
http://books.nap.edu/catalog/12794.html
(Dollar figure for 2005, in 2007 dollars.)
Of course, no one on forums like this wants to mention external costs, because including them makes it clear that we are all subsidizing fossil fuels by a huge amount through worse health and higher medical costs.
Yeah, but David, fossil fuels dont pollute if certain safeguards are employed.
Hi David Appell,
You take Nordhaus’s cause stating:
“Generating power with coal and oil creates more damage than value-added, according to Yale economist William Nordhaus in a 2011 paper:
“Environmental Accounting for Pollution in the United States Economy,” Nicholas Z. Muller, Robert Mendelsohn, and William Nordhaus, American Economic Review, 101(5): 1649–75 (2011).
http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.101.5.1649”
Assuming his math adds up ( which I don’t ) natural gas is much more abundant and constantly replenished by the Earth. As to coal and petroleum, how do they derive these numbers? For example, you declare:
“The National Academy of Sciences estimated that fossil fuel use causes damages of at least $120 B/yr to health and the environment”
Do they include automobile accidents in this figure? Even electric cars since the electricity is often generated by hydrocarbons? How do you derive the figure? You go on:
“Petroleum-generated electricity is even worse: $5.13 in damages for $1 in value.”
Are you saying a Tesla running on petroleum-generated electricity is worse than a coal powered steam engine? Just asking. You state:
“Of course, no one on forums like this wants to mention external costs, because including them makes it clear that we are all subsidizing fossil fuels by a huge amount through worse health and higher medical costs.”
Have you been concentrating and inhaling gasoline fumes David? I’m willing to discuss them when you present a careful examination of the data provided.
Have a great day!
John wrote:
“Do they include automobile accidents in this figure?”
Are you incapable of reading the report to find out?
Instead of having a wonderful day, get busy and answer your own questions.
John wrote:
“I’m willing to discuss them when you present a careful examination of the data provided.”
No you’re not, John. You just immediately rejected a report from the National Academy of Sciences without even looking it.
Do you think that makes you smart, John?
I don’t. I think it makes you a fool.
Have a great day!
Hi David Appell,
You state:
“No you’re not, John. You just immediately rejected a report from the National Academy of Sciences without even looking it.
Do you think that makes you smart, John?
I don’t. I think it makes you a fool.”
David you’ve apparently compounded error and a lack of reading comprehension with delusion. First I never REJECTED the report from the National Academy of Sciences and don’t plan to. I simply questioned what assumptions were made in preparing the report, which seems to me a rational exercise given other governments reports. I stated:
“Assuming his math adds up ( which I don’t ) natural gas is much more abundant and constantly replenished by the Earth. As to coal and petroleum, how do they derive these numbers?”
How David in the name of all that is rational does that amount to rejecting the report? I simply don’t take the figure at face value because you post it on a blog spot. Truly delusional David. Do you think your post makes you appear intelligent? Perhaps you answered the question better than I could.
Moreover, David you did not present a careful examination of the information contained in the report merely a figure derived from it without any supporting evidence. Again David do you think that makes you appear rational?
Since you used the term, would you say fools often consciously or unconsciously misrepresent the actions of others to boost their own possibly sagging reputation?
Have a great day!
JohnKl says:
“Assuming his math adds up ( which I don’t ) natural gas is much more abundant and constantly replenished by the Earth. As to coal and petroleum, how do they derive these numbers?”
Why don’t you read the report and understand the basis for their numbers?
Why not?
— David
Hi David Appell,
One other point regarding your post. You state;
“Petroleum-generated electricity is even worse: $5.13 in damages for $1 in value.”
It’s only worse in terms of this ratio. Coal far outpaces petroleum in total damages according to the article you post referencing the report.
“Table 5 explores GED due to coal-fired, oil-fired, and natural gas power plants. The first three columns estimate GED/VA, GED, and GED per kwh. Coal-fired facilities account for 95 percent of GED of this sector. The electricity produced by coal-fired facilities also has the highest GED per kwh of 2.8 cents. Oil-fired plants have the highest GED/VA ratio (5.13) and a GED/kwh of 2 cents. The GED for natural gas plants is much smaller, $900 million, and these plants have a much lower GED/VA ratio. The GED/kwh for natural gas is just 0.1 cents.”
If you notice, natural gas does far better in terms of costs. Moreover, if you read carefully the article mentions quite considerable UNCERTAINTY’S in it’s own data. By the way in my opinion it DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE REPORT!!!
Have a great day!
Hi David Appell,
You ask:
“Why don’t you read the report and understand the basis for their numbers?
Why not?”
From what I can tell, you linked to an article referencing and somewhat describing the report. Provide the FULL report please.
Have a great day!
Hi David Appell,
In fact, you did provide some data regarding the report ( apparently was off on that and I apologize ) from an article about the report and attached data sets. However, while the article discusses the report and provides wide identification of data sources and it seemed incomplete and in the case of the supposed Social costs of carbon quite lacking.
Have a great day!
This is hilarious!
To quote from the report “Five industries stand out as large air polluters: coal-fired power plants, crop production, truck transportation, livestock production, and highway street-bridge
construction.”
So we should quite using electricity, quit buying or producing any products of any kind and quit eating anything at all.
Wow, just Wow!
@Simon,
“And if you are still not convince have a listen to Richard Muller.”
Who, Richard Muller?
The ones whose daughter (director of BEST) ran a “Green government†consultancy?
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/elizabeth-muller-director-of-best-ran-a-green-government-consultancy/
Yeah, you are joking indeed.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
Yes that’s him. The Richard Muller who skeptics celebrated and championed.
Hi Simon,
All skeptics? Really? When was the last skeptics “We Love Richard Muller” convention? I must have missed it. So sad.
Have a great day
Right Simon. How soon everyone forgets….
Assuming they ever new who Richard Muller was to begin with.
Have a great day!
Everyone knows who Richard Muller was….
Who is Richard Muller?
David:
“Everyone knows who Richard Muller was….”
No David, I knew about him when he started the BEST project, and for what I read, he was a “very different kind of skeptic”. For what I understand he looked like a “fifth column” in the skeptics side.
Simon:
I never celebrated someone for what he/she thinks about something, so I never celebrated Richard Muller too.
In my point of view a real skeptic never just rely on third parties thoughts.
A skeptic has a brain which tries to match the many different knowledge it collected along its life and when it finds an incongruence stops and asks for explanations.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
How many degrees of separation between Richard Muller and Kevin Bacon? Just asking…
Have a great day!
Massimo PORZIO: You should read Richard Muller’s article in the New York Times:
“The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic,” Richard Muller, 7/28/12
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html
“Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.”
Richard Muller is a liar.
@David Appell,
the problem David is how much those data are really measured and how much they are “computed” or “adjusted” or worse “homogenized”.
Anyways, I don’t give my attention to a dataset which shows a Earth cooling when it includes the “UHI effect” but returns to show a Earth warming when it also includes the “irrigation effect”.
Because that’s no more a temperature dataset, it’s just a simulation of supposed evaluated effects, which real amplitudes we don’t know indeed.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
@David Appell,
again David,
in that Richard Muller’s excerpt “it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.”
There is no proof of what he asserts, he says “appears likely”, what is “appears likely” in science?
Without a clear scientific explanation of what he asserts, the only thing that “appears likely” to me is that his “conversion” (if really happened) was due to the interests of his daughter business.
Again, have a nice day.
Massimo
Hi David Appell,
Fascinating Muller quote. Who was around 250 years ago to measure global temperatures David? You do not appear to interested in observation and RAW data do you?
Have a great day!
Thanks, Dr. Spencer, for mentioning the good work from Dr. Ryan Maue. His Global Tropical Cyclone Activity assessment is top in his field. I show his Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) index graphic in ARVAL’s climate and meteorology pages.
Except that ACE is an especially lousy metric, because it doesn’t include the size of storms.
It’s like saying a house fly and a Mack truck have the same “energy” as long as they are moving at the same speed. Which is obviously ridiculous.
Much better is the TIKE metric:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2013/05/a-new-hurricane-metric.html
Except no one seems interested in calculating it, because they are stuck in their old ways.
Hi David Appell,
You state:
“Except no one seems interested in calculating it, because they are stuck in their old ways.”
Or they simply can’t be bothered trying to obtain velocity and such data from every cubic meter or metric quadrant of the storm and then summing the lot to produce some number theoretically relevant to the actual storm. Nor does it seem their could be any reasonable way to obtain it. Therefore, the exercise would quickly devolve into assumptions and CREATIVE MODELING.
Have a great day!
Hi David Appell,
If you’ve employed storm chasers and such to obtain the data, I’d really like to see what you’ve come up with.
Have a great day!
Without the mass of a storm, ACE isn’t an energy, is if?
Have a great day!
Read the paper at the link I provided.
Have a wonderful wonderful day!
Hi David. Hurricanes are determined by wind velocity, not areal extent. You seem disappointed that hurricanes have decreased in recent years. You can blame it on CO2, which has steadily increased as hurricanes have steadily diminished.
Hi David Appell,
One suggestion might be to calculate the storms Kinetic Power ( energy per unit of time – i.e. Watts instead of Joules ) per metric quadrant. This would be much more complex but provide fascinating information. In addition, it mirrors how we already examine solar irradiance. Under TIKE white squalls and such common phenomenon ( especially in the Atlantic ) would appear relatively small in terms of energy because the life span of such proves small, but their destructive power can be devastating.
Have a great day!
mpainter wrote:
“Hurricanes are determined by wind velocity, not areal extent.”
But energy is not.
ACE is not an energy, despite its name, and it’s very deceptive to call it one.
JohnKl wrote:
“One suggestion might be to calculate the storms Kinetic Power ( energy per unit of time – i.e. Watts instead of Joules ) per metric quadrant.”
I have no idea what a “metric quadrant” is supposed to mean, but ACE doesn’t calculate anythign like “kinetic power,” or kinetic energy.
[I presume kinetic power = d/dt (Kinetic energy) ?? But that’s not very important in terms of hurricane damage or hurricane strength.]
ACE simply isn’t calculating energy, and its name is misleading. Using it as the primary gauge of hurricane activity is equally misleading. It ought to be removed from the discussion.
Yeah, but hurricanes are determined by wind velocity, David.
mpainter says:
“Yeah, but hurricanes are determined by wind velocity, David.”
False — they are also determined by the size of a storm.
mpainter says:
“Yeah, but hurricanes are determined by wind velocity, David.”
And some people think the destructive ability of hurricanes varies as the 9th power of wind speed, not that they should be characterized by their 2nd power, as ACE uses.
THE ECONOMICS OF HURRICANES AND IMPLICATIONS OF GLOBAL WARMING
WILLIAM D. NORDHAUS
Climate Change Economics, Vol. 1, No. 1 (2010) 1–20
© World Scientific Publishing Company
DOI: 10.1142/S2010007810000054
http://aida.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/documents/Nordhaus_Hurricanes_CCE_1_1.pdf
Wind velocity determines the category of hurricane. David. You repeatedly deny that. Then you call others deniers for pointing out where you are wrong. Amusing.
Hi Simon,
You stated:
“Re the name calling refer to Bohdan Burban’S helpful post.
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” ― Socrates”
Since you’ve engaged in much name calling yourself should we take this as admission by you that the debate has been lost by those advocating global warming?
Have a great day!
“For us to accept that the average surface temperature of the Earth has risen to critical levels due to mankind’s production of greenhouse gases, we’ll need to see some actual, visible evidence, including a global death toll of no less than 500 million people within a single calendar year,” said spokesperson William Davis, 46, of Jackson, NJ, who added that at least 70 percent of all islands on the planet would also have to become submerged under rising seas before he and his cohort would reconsider their beliefs. “To start, we’re going to have to see supercell tornadoes of category F4 or higher ripping through Oklahoma at least three times a day, leveling entire communities and causing hundreds of fatalities—and just to be perfectly clear, we’re talking year-round, not just during the spring tornado season.”
http://www.theonion.com/article/climate-change-deniers-present-graphic-description-51129
Hi David Appell,
You seem surprised people actually seek evidence that temperature changes would actually lead to catastrophe when after all the dire model warnings, bogus ineffective government solutions like the Kyoto Protocol, many CREATIVE MODELS predicting temperatures higher than they turned out to be and DATA ADJUSTMENTS to apparently misrepresent past climate info ( like the University of Colorado adjusting sea levels on the apparently, factually destitute claim that the world’s ocean basins have grown larger ). Recently we have NASA and NOAA being investigated by Congress. Media sources tout every hurricane as somehow proof of climate change, even though much more severe storms have taken place in the past and current activity is not abnormal. The question it seems should be why after all this would any sentient being take your warnings and pseudo science claims seriously at all?
Have a great day!
Good points. Especially about the University of Colorado and it’s fabrication of a rising sea level. Theirs is the most successful of AGW hoaxes, for no one questions their data, which is wholly spurious.
Hi JohnKl,
always nice to read you.
“Media sources tout every hurricane as somehow proof of climate change, even though much more severe storms have taken place in the past and current activity is not abnormal. The question it seems should be why after all this would any sentient being take your warnings and pseudo science claims seriously at all?”
Well said.
Just to say, a couple of days ago, one of the main Italian television news scared people with “the Earth is warming, but Italian lands warm more!!!” meme.
They cherry picked the last 15 years to produce a 1.5*C/decade, so I was “very scared” for that 🙂
Anyways I try to imagine, what should we (Italians) have done to have our lands so much more hot than the rest of the globe?
It’s surely because I driven my sport car during the weekends, I should stop to do it for my grandnephew.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
Hi Massimo PORZIO,
You state:
“It’s surely because I driven my sport car during the weekends, I should stop to do it for my grandnephew.”
Don’t rely on the Fiat or Alpha Romeo, too small. Get the hottest Lambourgheni, Ferrari or maybe Bugatti Veyron and let the plant food spout!
Have a great day!
Hi JohnKL
I own an Alfa Romeo 4C with race-pack.
I know it’s small compared to Ferrari or Lamborghini, but it run much more than the wind and accelerate more than enough for me, it jumps from 0 to 100km/h in less than 4.5s, 4.1s when started at 6000rpm (leaving the back tires on the ground, sigh).
So, do you say it produces too little food for trees?
Yes, you could be right because it’s an Euro6 car with just 157g/km of CO2… Not really like the Lamborghini Aventador which is more than 370g/km.
The Aventador can produce food for trees, but it can cook food for humans also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUVPtcGvy38
It’s a joke of course, but I wouldn’t stay behind that
exhaust with my little 4C. Those fire tongues are truly very hot!
Have a great day.
Massimo
His exalted Excellency the Grand High Inquisitor will be wanting to ask some questions of you, Massimo, you and your poisonous little sports car.
Massimo, I once hitched a ride from Firenze to Napoli. The driver owned an Alfa Romeo Julia SS. We cruised comfortably at 115 mph (185 kph). Car was so well designed, there was little noise. We averaged over 100 mph (161 kph) for the entire trip!
Massimo PORZIO says:
“So, do you say it produces too little food for trees?”
Why are you more interested in feeding trees than people?
“Higher CO2 tends to inhibit the ability of plants to make protein… And this explains why food quality seems to have been declining and will continue to decline as CO2 rises — because of this inhibition of nitrate conversion into protein.”
– University of California at Davis Professor Arnold J. Bloom, on Yale Climate Connections 10/7/14
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2014/10/crop-nutrition//2014
Davie asks: “Why are you more interested in feeding trees than people?”
geran asks: “Davie, why are you so fascinated with pseudoscience?”
Once again David tries on the “CO2 is bad for plants” tactic. He doesn’t believe it himself, but who knows what sort of gullible types might be out there perusing this thread? And so he does what he can for the cause. Gives a pint of blood every day, does David.
CO2 isn’t bad for plants, it’s bad for the *nutritional quality* of plants.
“Total protein and nitrogen concentrations in plants generally decline under elevated CO2 atmospheres…. Recently, several meta-analyses have indicated that CO2 inhibition of nitrate assimilation is the explanation most consistent with observations. Here, we present the first direct field test of this explanation….. In leaf tissue, the ratio of nitrate to total nitrogen concentration and the stable isotope ratios of organic nitrogen and free nitrate showed that nitrate assimilation was slower under elevated than ambient CO2. These findings imply that food quality will suffer under the CO2 levels anticipated during this century unless more sophisticated approaches to nitrogen fertilization are employed.”
— “Nitrate assimilation is inhibited by elevated CO2 in field-grown wheat,” Arnold J. Bloom et al, Nature Climate Change, April 6 2014.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2183.html
Wrong,David. Nutritional quality has not changed in spring or winter hard wheat nor semolina nor spring soft wheat nor corn nor oats or other grains nor Apple’s, pears, peaches or any fruits, vegetables, nuts,etc.
My God David,
I was joking with that message of course.
One of the reason I bought the 4C is that (for the moment) it is the most performant sport car which runs to 260km/h with an acceleration better than the Ferrari Testarossa, that when driven respecting the street limits consumes almost like any other conventional car.
Its turbo charged engine reported a 13.5 km/litre as minimum efficiency and 14.6 km/litre as maximum to me.
As a reference, my Alfa Romeo Giulietta, which I use for my everyday needs, reports 15.6 km/litre. That allow me to asserts that the 4C is a great “ecologic” sport car, even if I’m dubious that a car can be defined “ecologic”.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
Hi Geran,
“I once hitched a ride from Firenze to Napoli. The driver owned an Alfa Romeo Julia SS. We cruised comfortably at 115 mph (185 kph). Car was so well designed, there was little noise. We averaged over 100 mph (161 kph) for the entire trip!”
I can’t see any Alfa Romeo Julia (Giulia) SS on the road, because I was too young those days (Alfa stopped its production when I was one), anyways I remember that my uncle, who was an Alfa Romeo enthusiast told great things about that car.
Anyways the 4C is very different, in my opinion it’s ambitious experiment for return the Alfa Romeo to the old glittering quality of the brand.
You must know that in late 70s the brand went in disgrace when it fallen in the hands of the politicians. Under the fundanomics-like administration (thanks to Dr. Spencer for the “fundanomics” definition) Alfa produced very bad made cars, even my uncle admitted it and moved his interest on other brands. In my opinion Alfa returned to design good cars in the middle of 90s and now Sergio Marchionne (the FCA CEO) decided to switch the production to sports car with the intention of re-enter the US market.
Next model should be the new Giulia 2016 which will debut at the Geneva Motor Show 2016. The current informations allude to a great high level car.
We will see, time will tell.
Anyways, if you are looking for a “little noise” car don’t buy the 4C 😉
Have a nice day.
Massimo
By the way geran,
here is no longer the place to run more than 190 km/h on the highway. From 130 to 190 km/h you get a fine and lose some points on the driving license, but above the 190km/h limit you have suspended the license for minimum 6 month, and if you repeat the misdeed in less than 2 year you must return to the driving school. ðŸ™
Massimo, yeah I’ve heard they now have speed limits. Sad. My adventure was in 1966, and there were essentially no limits then, on the autostrada. At least, we never got caught!
@mpainter
“His exalted Excellency the Grand High Inquisitor will be wanting to ask some questions of you, Massimo, you and your poisonous little sports car.”
Uh! I pay Euro 625/year just for the possession my sport car
and sometimes they stop me to drive my car on Sunday because of the too high PM10 in the city, while it’s well known that almost all the PM10 is produced by diesel engines.
By the way our fuel tax is 73% ðŸ™
What could them ask more? 🙂
Yes, you are probably right, they will invent surely something more, the politicians are so creative in inventing new taxes. ðŸ™
Have a great day.
Massimo
painter wrote:
“Nutritional quality has not changed in spring or winter hard wheat nor semolina nor spring soft wheat nor corn nor oats or other grains nor Apple’s, pears, peaches or any fruits, vegetables, nuts,etc.”
Prove it.
painter wrote:
“Nutritional quality has not changed in spring or winter hard wheat nor semolina nor spring soft wheat nor corn nor oats or other grains nor Apple’s, pears, peaches or any fruits, vegetables, nuts,etc.”
“Total protein and nitrogen concentrations in plants generally decline under elevated CO2 atmospheres…. Recently, several meta-analyses have indicated that CO2 inhibition of nitrate assimilation is the explanation most consistent with observations. Here, we present the first direct field test of this explanation….. In leaf tissue, the ratio of nitrate to total nitrogen concentration and the stable isotope ratios of organic nitrogen and free nitrate showed that nitrate assimilation was slower under elevated than ambient CO2. These findings imply that food quality will suffer under the CO2 levels anticipated during this century unless more sophisticated approaches to nitrogen fertilization are employed.”
— “Nitrate assimilation is inhibited by elevated CO2 in field-grown wheat,” Arnold J. Bloom et al, Nature Climate Change, April 6 2014.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2183.html
Well, folks, David is up to his usual tactic of linking to a paywalled paper. This means, of course, that he has not read it. He apparently has not read the abstract, either. The abstract gives that wheat grown under ambient conditions of CO2 (present levels of atmospheric CO2) had the higher protein content. We are supposed to be alarmed at that.
I suspect that the authors used a greenhouse to grow the wheat grown under higher CO2 levels. This unnatural circumstance probably was the contributing factor to the lower protein in that group.
Oh, David, I suggest that in the future you read a study before linking to it. That’s the intelligent thing to do, don’t you agree?
Hi mpainter,
You state:
“I suspect that the authors used a greenhouse to grow the wheat grown under higher CO2 levels. This unnatural circumstance probably was the contributing factor to the lower protein in that group.”
You can look at the graphs presented as well. Two of them show approximately equal nitrate assimilation between ambient and elevated CO2 with one of the those two graphs showing a slight INCREASE in nitrate absorption for the ELEVATED CO2 levels. The other two graphs show a slight relative drop for the elevated CO2. Since the data seems inconsistent perhaps another cause for poor nitrate absorption is to blame. Will David will necessarily consider his own links supposedly measured data? Time will tell.
It would be interesting if he can provide information without pay wall requirements to back his statements more frequently.
Have a great day!
John:
If you don’t understand the need for adjustments to raw data — which the UAH group does too, to satellite data — you simply don’t understand the science. Period.
Have a great day!
Davie, your understanding of pseudoscience does not entitle you to determine whether or not someone else understands science.
First, you need to distinguish between science and your pseudoscience. Get back to us in about 5 years, if you study hard.
Once the signal is processed, David, UAH makes no adjustment to the data so retrieved. There is no equivalence between UAH and the tampering, smearing, fabrication and other adulterations of the surface data sets.
Nor does UAH suffer from UHE distortions, discontinuities, etc. that distort the surface datasets. It is also more complete and a more reliable metric for determining long term temperature trends.
“Once the signal is processed, David, UAH makes no adjustment to the data so retrieved.”
False. They have to adjust for any satellite orbital decay, and a host of other adjustments, as described in RSS’s Algorithm Description, starting with section 3.2.2 and onward:
“Climate Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document (C-ATBD)”
RSS Version 3.3 MSU/AMSU-A
Mean Layer Atmospheric Temperature
http://images.remss.com/papers/msu/MSU_AMSU_C-ATBD.pdf
Here’s a list of the major corrections to UAH’s model (some of which were acquiesced to only after intense scientific combat):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset#Corrections_made
Yes, and you have just referenced signal processing.
The pause goes on. How are the onions,David?
Hi David Appell,
Since as one of your links ( data from which I myself have posted on this blog-site in the pas ) suggests UAH adjusted satellite data a full tenth of a degree centigrade warmer in 1998 ( claimed to be hottest year on record ) due to diurnal drift, where did the .1 deg centigrade figure come from? Did anyone measure it? How could they if the satellite had drifted off course? Did they snatch comparable data from RSS? Or ground measurements? Was the comparable data-set if used truly representative of what was supposed to be measured from the beginning? Was the adjustment based on assumptions? How? What kind? Or should we just take someone’s word for it? Did someone supposedly trained in climate modeling draft an equation, insert assumed values and derive some figure for mass consumption?
Add to all this the many assumptions made in using oxygen microwave frequency data to determine temps at various altitudes in the atmosphere, one can easily make many criticisms of such data. Similar criticisms can likely be applied to other data sets as well.
Have a great day!
John: You seem to have suddenly discovered that UAH’s numbers are dependent on a complex data model.
About time.
Deniers accepted UAH’s transition from v5.6 to v6beta because they completely refused to look at how big the changes actually were.
Though they whined about the changes of Karl et al Science 2015, even though they were much smaller.
Bias shown.
Hi David Appell,
It depends on the reason for the adjustment. If empirical evidence exists that data is faulty it should be removed, but only replaced with accurate data not guesswork. Adjusting data based on assumptions like expansion of the world’s ocean basins doesn’t appear very rational to me. Does it seem rational to you? Personally I prefer empirical measurement to academic pseudo-science projection, how about you?
Have a great day!
Hi David Appell,
Just for the record. I am not an apologist for the UAH data set which has made adjustments to the data, and I have posted criticism of it in the past.
Have a great day!
“Adjusting data based on assumptions like expansion of the world’s ocean basins doesn’t appear very rational to me. Does it seem rational to you?”
It might — I’d have to do the careful analysis. Which you scoff at and completely dismiss, with no thinking whatsoever.
Back of the envelope calculation — can you do one of these, John?
Start with the tectonic plate expansion between North America and Europe ~ 3 cm/yr.
Hi David Appell,
You state:
“It might — I’d have to do the careful analysis. Which you scoff at and completely dismiss, with no thinking whatsoever.
Back of the envelope calculation — can you do one of these, John?”
Wrong, I’ve indicated why the figure makes little sense in past posts. First present measurements of the Earth’s entire ocean basin and re-measurements of the basins over time. If you can’t there would be no meaningful data to calculate from. You state:
“Start with the tectonic plate expansion between North America and Europe ~ 3 cm/yr.”
Provide evidence that no off-setting tectonic mutation occurs over the same time period in the same ocean basin. Provide actual measurements of the ocean basin not assumptions based on a claimed tectonic plate expansion of ~3 cm/yr. Do your homework David don’t just spout a number.
Have a great day!
John:
It is not my job to provide you with numbers.
Do your own analysis.
Have a great day!
FYI David, the U of Colo adjustments are based on hypothetical isostasy adjustments, not plate spreading as you incorrectly assume. Their sea level data is fabrication.
JohnKl says:
“You seem surprised people actually seek evidence that temperature changes would actually lead to catastrophe when after all the dire model warnings”
Define “catastrophe.”
Because it is not a scientific word — it depends on one’s values.
Until you define it, it is meaningless.
Hi David Appell,
You state:
“Define a catastrophe.”
Because it is not a scientific word – it depends on one’s values.
Until you define it, it is meaningless.”
Why? I never claimed a “catastrophe” would occur. Although Al Gore predicted the Sumer polar ice cap would be ice free by now ( does that sound catastrophic? ) if nothing was done to curb CO2. Another false prediction by activists.
Have a great day!
JohnKl says:
“You seem surprised people actually seek evidence that temperature changes would actually lead to catastrophe….”
Until you define your terms, like “catastrophe,” your sentences are scientifically meaningless.
Hi David Appell,
You state:
“Until you define your terms, like “catastrophe,” your sentences are scientifically meaningless.”
Oh! You have a problem with scientifically meaningless terms like “climate change” for example. Glad to see you find the issue scientifically meaningless.
Have a great day!
Hi David,
How much time do you spend reading the “Onion”? Telling name, that.
The “Onion” is one of the major sources of pseudoscience that Davie “studies” regularly. That’s why he is so up-to-date on pseudoscience!
Yes, that explains his “halitosis of the intellect”.
“…much more severe storms have taken place in the past…”
If recorded.
My father was first officer of an oil-tanker in the Indian Ocean in the 1930’s. They ran into a cyclone, and my father estimated the waves at EIGHTY feet. They survived; and when they docked in India he made a report to the local Royal Navy meteorologist. The RN man said, “Nobody will believe eighty feet – I’ll put it down at forty.”
Dear Dr Roy,
can you please explain what the numbers on the y and x axes of Ryan Maue’s “Power Dissipation Index” refer to.
Thank you.
It’s actually Kerry Emmanuel who came up with the PDI.
Davie, the correct spelling of his name is “Emanuel”. But, in pseudo-spelling, like pseudoscience, I guess anything goes….
marchesarosa, I’ll try to give you a quick answer until Dr. Roy can give you a more complete one.
The “x-axis” is simply years, with the first two digits omitted. For example, “98” = 1998, and “06” = 2006.
The “y-axis” is more complicated. It is a dimensionless index for comparing hurricanes. The maximum wind speeds of a hurricane, over time intervals, are obtained. Since wind energy is proportional to the cube (third power) of wind speed, the maximum wind speeds are then cubed. Adding the calculated values for a particular hurricane then gives a number for comparison to other hurricanes. That calculated number should, everything else being the same, be somewhat proportional to the hurricane energy.
Talk about burying the lede! As he is wont to do when the big news is inconvenient, Dr. Spencer put the most significant fact — “that global average tropical cyclone activity has increased again in the last year or so” — way down in his post.
It is the Atlantic Hurricanes that concern this nation, and that was the topic of the post. So why the snark?
There is more to this world than the US.
See title to the post. The more the CO2, the fewer the Atlantic hurricanes, the more the Anarctic ice mass, and now Greenland ice mass is growing. And the pause continues. How about that CO2!
“The more the CO2, the fewer the Atlantic hurricanes, the more the Anarctic ice mass, and now Greenland ice mass is growing. And the pause continues. How about that CO2!”
Wrong on all accounts. For which, of course, you provide no proof whatsoever, because you are incapable of critical thinking and arguing with evidence.
What’s wrong with you? Is it substance abuse? Concerning Reduction in Atlantic hurricanes, see above post, David, also latest reports from NASA on Antarctic ice mass, DMI on Greenland. For “pause”, see UAH global anomaly for October.
In fact, the “pause” is misnamed, since we cannot be sure that cooling will not dominate the present century.
Hi David Appell,
You state:
“There is more to this world than the US.”
Yes, and after the recent attacks on France ISIS claims they will attack us again. Tell me Dave if they start slitting throats in your neck of the woods will you just chalk it up to climate change, pay some bureaucratic fee to prove your a friend to the planet and offset your Sasquatch size carbon footprint by planting a tree or buying a Prius (do you own one already)? Tell me David did the Weather make them do it? Or did the supposedly shrinking amount of protein in their Wheat Thins make then go nuts? Just asking…
Have a great day!
John: Your questions are odious.
Though not as odious as Roy Spencer’s diatribe on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/roy.w.spencer/posts/10200870908412704
Roy, if you ever wonder why no one considers you or your scientific opinions anymore, you can now stop wondering. Your rant was perverse.
Hi David Appell,
You stated:
“John: Your questions are odious.”
David to be fair my post was heavily sarcastic and I apologize for any offense. However, many
enviro political hacks have blamed rather insignificant warming on any number of maladies and I shouldn’t have assumed you share all their claims. However, while I will accept that you don’t necessarily hold the view that lack of wheat protein excuses behavior, I still think the “Wheat Thins” comment rather amusing. It reminds of the “Twinkly” defense of some years ago. Eventually someone, somewhere will probably use it.
Have a great day!
mpainter wrote:
“Once again David tries on the “CO2 is bad for plants” tactic.”
Try reading. It’s bad for plant NUTRITION.
On this matter, I think I”ll go with the PhD plant expert instead of …… you.
And once again, David tries the “CO2 is bad for plants” tactic.
Agricultural yields have increased dramatically in the last thirty years. The Sahel and other arid places are greening, thanks to our use of fossil fuels. More good news: the US, Russia, China,India,Japan, and Germany are all set to increase their use of fossil fuels.
“Agricultural yields have increased dramatically in the last thirty years.”
Prove it.
Then prove it’s due to CO2.
There are many factors that make up agricultural productivity.
You are simply assuming it’s all due to CO2, with no proof whatsoever.
Read the work of your betters:
“For wheat, maize and barley, there is a clearly negative response of global yields to increased temperatures. Based on these sensitivities and observed climate trends, we estimate that warming since 1981 has resulted in annual combined losses of these three crops representing roughly 40 Mt or $5 billion per year, as of 2002.”
— “Global scale climate–crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming,” David B Lobell and Christopher B Field 2007 Environ. Res. Lett. 2 014002 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/1/014002
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/1/014002
“We also find that the overall effect of warming on yields is negative, even after accounting for the benefits of reduced exposure to freezing temperatures.”
— “Effect of warming temperatures on US wheat yields,” Jesse Tack et al, PNAS 4/20/15
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/05/06/1415181112
—
General Mills CEO Ken Powell told the Associated Press:
We think that human-caused greenhouse gas causes climate change and climate volatility and that’s going to stress the agricultural supply chain, which is very important to us.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-general-mills-greenhouse-gas-cuts-20150830-story.html
David,
Thanks for the info on alarmism by General Mills. I will refrain from their products.
The US Ag Dept believes that increased CO2 increases yields, especially under conditions of deficient soil moisture. Has something to due with the reduction in stoma numbers. CO2 enrichment improves the yield of greenhouse grown products, this a well known fact for decades, and commercial growers enrich CO2 in their greenhouses to 1000 ppm.
Your alarmism is showing, David. Your reference shows that yields were measured under drought conditions, without specifically reporting the drought. This may be inferred from the abstract which gave that increased rainfall could overcome “heat stress”. This failure to report drought as a factor in reduced yields is dishonest. More of your favorite kind of science, David.
Proving once again that _dubious science_ =_dubious scientists_. And David, you are an ever flowing fount of the most dubious kind of science.
Agricultural yields are increasing worldwide and people are better fed with each passing year, despite burgeoning populations. This cannot be attributed to AGW because there is no warming, has been no warming this century.These are facts, David, your junk science notwithstanding.
Roy: The increasing trend in North Atlantic tropical storms and hurricanes, via Ryan Maue:
http://policlimate.com/tropical/north_atlantic_hurricane.png
You forgot to chart the last five years David. Typical global warmer tactics.
David Appell
I looked at your link and found this one.
http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/gw_4ce_hurricanes.htm
The conclusion from this work suggests the apparent increase in tropical storms is due to better reporting technology. Many charts on this page.
Hi Norman,
Thank you for a great post. You stated:
“The conclusion from this work suggests the apparent increase in tropical storms is due to better reporting technology.”
I’ve noted this before as well. Moreover, not just better technology more eyes looking for them too. When I was a kid if a large storm or hurricane came around they’d send some guy in a plane to drop a device to measure windspeed. Now with the advanced telemetry, satellite information, and storm chasers it’s more and more difficult for even a decent size squall to go unnoticed!
Have a great day!
Hi Norman,
Thank you for the link as well.
Have a great day!
JohnKl
Thanks. Do you think David Appell will look at it?
Hi Norman,
David might look at it, but sometimes he seems to remind me of the guy in Simon and Garfunkel’s “The Boxer” song where it states:
“Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest.”
Have a great day!
Where is your data, John?
Have a wonderful day!!
Hi David Appell,
You ask:
“Where is your data, John?
Have a wonderful day!!”
David, please re-read the above posts. Norman posted the data!!! The comments were in reference to that. Why ask me?
Have a great day!
That data only goes to 2011 — the very thing I was criticized for.
Where is the last 5 years of data?
What difference does it make to the long-term trend?
Have a great day! (Yes, it sounds just as fake when I write it as when you write it.)
Hi David Appell,
You stated:
“That data only goes to 2011 — the very thing I was criticized for.
Where is the last 5 years of data?
What difference does it make to the long-term trend?
Have a great day! (Yes, it sounds just as fake when I write it as when you write it.)”
Good question for Norman. My concern had to do with changing technology and attention to climate. To massage all data-sets together as if everything was consistent over time using the same methodology etc. to me seem silly. However, I was probably over critical of you. I apologize, and I do mean…
Have a great day!
It’s Ryan Maue’s graph, not mine. And the last few years won’t change the obvious long-term trend.
The last ten years show reduction. You left off half the data.
dubious science=dubious scientists.
Hi David Appell,
You state:
“No you’re not, John. You just immediately rejected a report from the National Academy of Sciences without even looking it.
Do you think that makes you smart, John?
I don’t. I think it makes you a fool.”
David you’ve apparently compounded error and a lack of reading comprehension with delusion. First I never REJECTED the report from the National Academy of Sciences. I simply questioned what assumptions were made in preparing the report, which seems to me a rational exercise given other governments reports. I stated:
“Assuming his math adds up ( which I don’t ) natural gas is much more abundant and constantly replenished by the Earth. As to coal and petroleum, how do they derive these numbers?”
How David in the name of all that is rational does that amount to rejecting the report? I simply don’t take the figure at face value because you post in on a blog spot. Truly delusional David. Do you think your post makes you appear intelligent? Perhaps you answered the question better than I could.
Moreover, David you did not present a careful examination of the information contained in the report merely a figure derived from it without any supporting evidence. Again David do you think that makes you appear rational?
Have a great day?
“First I never REJECTED the report from the National Academy of Sciences. I simply questioned what assumptions were made in preparing the report, which seems to me a rational exercise given other governments reports.”
You didn’t even look at the report to try to answer your own questions.
Are you too good for that?
I’m sorry, but I don’t think someone like you, who rejects a report from national experts without even opening it, has much of anything to contribute on the issues.
Hi David Appell,
You stated:
“I’m sorry, but I don’t think someone like you, who rejects a report from national experts without even opening it, has much of anything to contribute on the issues.”
You linked to an article about the report which I’ve already discussed. See above. Where’s the full report.
Have a great day!
Hi David Appell,
Once again I never rejected the report.
Have a great day!
Hi David Appell,
You state:
“Define “catastrophe.â€
Because it is not a scientific word — it depends on one’s values.
Until you define it, it is meaningless.”
Why? I never claimed a “catastrophe” would occur. Although Al Gore predicted the Sumer polar ice cap would be ice free by now if nothing was done to curb CO2. Another false prediction by activists.
Have a great day!
You used the word “catastrophe.” I haven’t. So I don’t know what you mean until you define it.
Hi David Appell,
I just meant it in terms of the general practice by alarmists of predicting doomish scenarios that seem to never occur. Thanks for the clarification and…
Have a great day!
Hi everyone,
Please note when I’ve attempted to cut and paste when posting on this site I’ve noticed the information comes out garbled. Roy this has happened more than once. Why?
Have a great day!
There’s a huge amount of bickering in this thread. Can’t you guys transcend the ‘tit for tat’ squabbling and address the real issue of how we can efficiently address the problem of AGW in a way that will benefit mankind, despite the possibility that in a few decades from now a popular PhD thesis will be, ‘How did our grandfathers get it so wrong on climate change?’
Our future prosperity is very much dependent upon our ability to distinguish be between what is certain and what is probable. If we treat ‘probable’ outcomes as though they are certain, and certain outcomes as though they are probable, then that’s the scenario for catastrophe.
Floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, and changing climate, have been with us since the time our ancestors resembled orangutans, and before.
For some bizarre reason, which I would attribute to the nature of economics, we have not been able to completely protect ourselves from the continual occurrence of natural disasters which we know, with reasonable certainty, will not stop reoccurring regardless of any concerns about CO2 levels.
If we don’t have the nous, or basic common sense, to protect ourselves from the regular and natural occurrences of climatic disasters, then why should anyone suppose there’s even a chance in hell that we could successfully protect ourselves from the purported increased severity of extreme weather events resulting increased CO2 levels?
It just doesn’t make sense. It’s all a nonsense. First deal with the certain problems, that floods, droughts and hurricanes are a reality and will continue regardless of CO2 levels.
Hi Vincent,
Keep in mind it’s impossible to prepare for every conceivable natural disturbance. Everyone lives with risk and the possibility of harm coming their way. No mere mortal here on Earth is immune.
Have a great day!
“There’s a huge amount of bickering in this thread.”
So says Vincent. Well, sir, since I have been a contributor to this thread, I feel that you could not refer to me, as my comments were carefully considered. Did you have anyone particularly in mind, or did you really intend to smear everyone?
If I were to start naming people, then I could be accused of bickering and ad hominem attacks, so I won’t.
There are many serious, real, definite and current problems in the world relating to extreme weather events, so let’s spend our current resources dealing with those first.
Right now you are accused of a general sneering slam at those who comment here.
Why not retract an unnecessary and unprovoked insult? Or do you imagine to excuse your ill manners with high-sounding rubbish? Right now, you don’t seem very reasonable.
Hi Vincent,
You state:
“There are many serious, real, definite and current problems in the world relating to extreme weather events, so let’s spend our current resources dealing with those first.”
Extreme weather events are neither new nor uncommon. What precisely do you think anyone including yourself can do about? What has anyone done since humanity first appeared on the planet thousands of years ago about it? How do you plan to spend your resources and to what end? Please refrain from using anyone else’s cash unless voluntarily provided. Odds are you won’t get many takers unless you can create a workable plan. So let’s see it!
Have a great day!
JohnKl says:
November 16, 2015 at 9:40 PM
Hi Vincent,
Extreme weather events are neither new nor uncommon. What precisely do you think anyone including yourself can do about? What has anyone done since humanity first appeared on the planet thousands of years ago about it?
——————————————————————
Hi JohnKI,
Thousands of years ago, people didn’t understand the processes of weather. What they did about it was to pray to various Gods, and if that didn’t work, they assumed they had done something wrong and were being punished by a particular God whom they’d made angry.
Nowadays we have a much better understanding of weather patterns and have accumulated lots of records of extreme weather events during the past couple of hundred years or so, some of which may be anecdotal, but in relation to flood events in particular, can be referenced to a specific flood height.
If we construct dwellings in flood plains, below the height of previous, known floods, then that’s plain silly, but that’s what many people do, with the approval of the building authorities, who are clearly incompetent and negligent in such circumstances when approving the construction of such dwellings. (Although, perhaps in America, with your emphasis on individual liberty, such dwellings could be approved on the basis that the owner, or person, or corporation paying for the dwelling, were advised that the dwelling was at risk of being flooded within the next 20 or 30 years or so. Wink.)
For a number of years I lived and worked in the city of Darwin, on the north coast of Australia, a city named after Charles Darwin, of course.
This specific area where the city was built, has a long history of cyclonic activity resulting in destruction and loss of life, as evidenced in the following link: http://ntlapp.nt.gov.au/tracy/basic/History_Cyclones.html
On Christmas eve, 1974, a category 4 cyclone devastated the city. Fortunately, I was on holiday at the time, and out of the country. When I returned from holiday, my employer, the Australian Government, relocated me temporarily. There was no accommodation in Darwin. The devastation was so great, there were rumours that the city was finished and would never be rebuilt.
However, a plan was devised. A lesson had eventually been learned. The city would be rebuilt, but with a strict building code that would ensure the buildings were resistant to category 4 cyclones, and every building would contain at least one room, usually the bathroom, which would be an ‘extra strong room’ and would be completely safe.
I could go on with other examples of plain incompetence on the part of regulatory authorities, but I think you get my drift.
By the way, even after that tragedy as recent as 1974, certain Christian religious fanatics walked around with banners delivering the message that Cyclone Tracy was God’s punishment for a city which had named itself after the atheist, Charles Darwin. How sad!
So Darwin had no appropriate building code and now they do. Was this your point in making your comment
“There’s a huge amount of bickering in this thread. Can’t you guys transcend the ‘tit for tat’ squabbling and address the real issue of how we can efficiently address the problem of AGW in a way that will benefit mankind..”
Hi Vincent,
Thank you for the reply and I hope everything now goes well for you in Australia. You state:
“By the way, even after that tragedy as recent as 1974, certain Christian religious fanatics walked around with banners delivering the message that Cyclone Tracy was God’s punishment for a city which had named itself after the atheist, Charles Darwin. How sad!”
Well, I can’t account for every Christian’s beliefs or how they derived them. However, I’m not aware that cyclone’s move necessarily according to the religious affiliations of individuals over which they move. Also I’m not aware whether or not Darwin claimed to be an atheist. He was a bible thumper in his youth and later years after he penned “The Origin of Species” he supposedly wrote a letter claiming not to believe in the bible or that Jesus was the Son of God, but that doesn’t mean he was necessarily an atheist. Btw, Lord Alfred Russel Wallace who was actually responsible for the concept of Natural Selection guided Darwin and was somewhat of a spiritualist if I remember correctly. He also discovered the Wallace line and traveled in Indonesia. A country I myself have been to.
Have a great day!
Hi JohnK1,
Definitions of the term ‘atheism’ vary. Christians seem to consider it as a ‘belief’, because they, as Christians, have been conditioned to ‘beleive’ (in God), and ‘belief’ is what they understand. Christians therefore seem to assume that atheism is a ‘counter belief’ in the non-existence of God.
My view of atheism is different. The atheist believes in rationality, logical deduction and evidence. The atheist considers it foolish for any individual to claim that he has some sort of direct communication with a ‘creator’ of the entire universe.
The existence of a creator God is therefore considered by atheists to be either pure speculation, or a delusion, rather than an absolute belief that there is no creator God.
Or to put is another way, if a creator God does exist, the atheist considers it extremely unlikely that any individual human being could express any accurate and meaningful description of such a God in the very imprecise medium of common language.
All the problems of humanity, in one sense, can be attributed to belief systems in relation to matters which are in reality not true. If you blieve in something which is not true in reality, then you are likely to experience trouble and misfortune, at some time in the future.
If you buy a house which in reality is located in a flood plain, but have been conned by the fact that the local authorities have approved of the contsruction of the house, and you have therefore assumed that it must be safe, then you will eventually experience trouble, unless you sell the house before the next flood occurs.
Try to have a great day, despite the fact your views may not accord with reality!
Vincent.
I suggest you read books like “Evidence that Demands a Verdict“ by Josh McDowell. Then, if you still choose to call Jesus a liar that is your prerogative, but, you’d want to be sure you’re right by reading such books and finding reasons why over 300 separate pieces of evidence are (each and every one) incorrect in your opinion – your belief perhaps I should say. You see, Vincent, you also have a “belief” system, so it’s just a question as to which belief is correct. Either Jesus lied in numerous statements He made while on Earth, or He didn’t so that what He said was (and still is) correct. In reality you probably have no idea as to what Jesus taught and claimed about Himself. You will stumble immediately at His claim (in John 6) that He came down from Heaven, having existed before Abraham. Being a Gideon, I’m happy to post you a free copy of the New Testament if you wish to read more, but start here with my website http://SavedByTheLamb.com
Hi Vincent,
You state:
“Or to put is another way, if a creator God does exist, the atheist considers it extremely unlikely that any individual human being could express any accurate and meaningful description of such a God in the very imprecise medium of common language.”
You should read Aristotle and Aquinas, they seem to do a very good job. You state:
“Definitions of the term ‘atheism’ vary.”
Not really, atheism is a denial of the existence of God.
“Christians seem to consider it as a ‘belief’, because they, as Christians, have been conditioned to ‘beleive’ (in God), and ‘belief’ is what they understand. Christians therefore seem to assume that atheism is a ‘counter belief’ in the non-existence of God.”
A belief is an acceptance that something or some claim is true or that something exists. In my opinion, it is no more a belief to claim God exists than to claim that energy exists. In my view, to deny God or the “prime mover” exists is to deny empirical evidence and hence would be to believe that no first cause exists and that everything is in motion. Which seems to contradict the first law of motion.
You state:
“All the problems of humanity, in one sense, can be attributed to belief systems in relation to matters which are in reality not true. If you believe in something which is not true in reality, then you are likely to experience trouble and misfortune, at some time in the future.”
Which is why the question of God’s existence proves important. You state:
“If you buy a house which in reality is located in a flood plain, but have been conned by the fact that the local authorities have approved of the construction of the house, and you have therefore assumed that it must be safe, then you will eventually experience trouble, unless you sell the house before the next flood occurs.”
How do you build your house and/or your life on quick-sand, or the solid rock of God’s word? You close:
“Try to have a great day, despite the fact your views may not accord with reality!”
The same could be said of anyone including yourself.
To re-phrase Yoda there exists only “is” or “is not” there is no “may.” Be precise, what exactly do you claim does not accord with reality and why? In my opinion, many of those who claim secular beliefs in their heart know God exists, like the communist band the Clash, from “The Guns of Brixton.”
“The money feels good
And your life you like it well
But surely your time will come
As in heaven, as in hell”
Hopefully, we all make the correct choice.
Have a great day!
JohnKl aka James Bond says:
November 20, 2015 at 3:07 PM
A belief is an acceptance that something or some claim is true or that something exists. In my opinion, it is no more a belief to claim God exists than to claim that energy exists. In my view, to deny God or the “prime mover” exists is to deny empirical evidence and hence would be to believe that no first cause exists and that everything is in motion. Which seems to contradict the first law of motion.
———————————————————–
That doesn’t seem at all like a scientific viewpoint to me. Do you claim to be a scientist, JohnKI?
My understanding of the methodology of science is that all theories are only provisionally accepted as being true to the extent they can be demonstrated consistently and repeatedly to be true, and that such theories are considered to be true for only as long as such repeated experiments and new observations continue to confirm their accuracy and usefulness.
The history of science is a story of the repeated discovery or revelation that what we once assumed was true, because the great minds and authorities of the times, such as Aristotle, claimed it was true, was later found to be untrue, either in part, or wholly untrue.
That process of discovering that what we once assumed to be true, is in reality not true, continues to this day, or do you perhaps think that Science has now reached a stage where big mistakes are never made?
Just a few decades ago we thought it was true that the expansion of the universe is slowing down. Fairly recent observations from the Hubble telescope surprised everyone, and revealed that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate. Is our understanding of ‘gravity’ incorrect, or is most of the matter and energy in the universe simply invisible and undetectable? We don’t know.
It seems a bit odd to me that on the one hand our current stage of scientific development has reached a tentative hypothesis that 95% of the stuff (Dark Matter and Dark Energy)that surrounds us might be totally invisible and undetectable, not only by human senses, but by the most sophisticated scientific instruments we have developed, yet on the other hand we have certain individuals living today, who seem to believe that it was possible that someone who lived two thousand years ago was able to detect the presence of the ‘Creator’ of all this matter and energy.