Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While we're on the subject of critiquing Cliff's methodology, it is completely unfair of him to say that the idea that global warming can produce a more wave-like jet stream has been "thoroughly debunked" and is "unfactual". This is, in fact, an area of active research and, as such, will consist of divergent opinions. Once again, Cliff chooses bits and pieces of those opinions that suit his needs and ignores the rest.
For example, the correspondence to Nature Climate Change that he refers to in his blog to is focused on winter (not summer) and its main hypothesis is that "temperature-related metrics all indicate warming in the longer term, with fewer and milder cold extremes." In other words: warmer winters. How exactly do warmer winters disprove the possibility of summer heat waves?
Most models suggest reduced frequency of troughs and increased frequency of ridges over the western United States.
The situation is far more complex than he describes in his blog--and he's knows it. One wonders why he chooses to oversimplify things in his blog whereas in his peer-reviewed work the interpretation is much more nuanced.
Good catch. I don't think I've ever seen a scientist do this. Well, given a choice between his two stances, I'll take the peer-reviewed one as his true opinion and I'll discount his blog as non-scientific musings.
Most models suggest reduced frequency of troughs and increased frequency of ridges over the western United States.
The situation is far more complex than he describes in his blog--and he's knows it. One wonders why he chooses to oversimplify things in his blog whereas in his peer-reviewed work the interpretation is much more nuanced.
He’s a contrarian and has a hate-on for the news media. His prime reason for posting often seems to be to attack the “liberal” media in Washington State. I find his rants kind of suspect. No matter the situation his emphasis will always be about how the media is wrong and too hysterical.
He’s a contrarian and has a hate-on for the news media. His prime reason for posting often seems to be to attack the “liberal” media in Washington State. I find his rants kind of suspect. No matter the situation his emphasis will always be about how the media is wrong and too hysterical.
Cliff Mass is in no way a contrarian. He is just critiquing a non peer reviewed paper that the news media over sensationalized
Cliff Mass is in no way a contrarian. He is just critiquing a non peer reviewed paper that the news media over sensationalized
The study has flaws for sure but once again the logical flaws in Cliff's rebuttal expose his deep biases. For example, he says:
Quote:
Their analyses provided an important finding: the Northwest heatwave of last month was extraordinarily improbable EVEN IF SUBSTANTIAL GLOBAL WARMING occurred. Global warming could not explain it.
Just because something is improbable does not mean a link is impossible. Consider, for example, that the vast majority of smokers will not get lung cancer. Even somebody who has smoked for forty years has a roughly 95% chance of not getting lung cancer (source). Using Cliff's logic one would write:
Their analyses provided an important finding: this patient's lung cancer was extraordinarily improbable EVEN IF SUBSTANTIAL SMOKING occurred. Smoking could not explain it.
... and right on the heels of the unprecedented British Columbia 121 F heat record, we have the massive floods in Germany right now:
"“I am surprised by how far it is above the previous record,” Dieter Gerten, professor of global change climatology and hydrology at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said. “We seem to be not just above normal but in domains we didn’t expect in terms of spatial extent and the speed it developed.”" -- the Guardian
Seems to be the AGW pattern: 1,000-year events happening frequently, all over the globe.
When are climate activists going to realize that calling every extreme weather event climate change is detrimental to the cause.
Also... why isn't climate change mentioned when a good thing is happening?
Asking for a friend
Scientists=/=activists. It only triggers the shrinking minority who are in denial due to political-ideological reasons, who will never accept the reality of AGW no matter what happens or what evidence is produced because denying it is now bound up with their identity.
Everyone else fairly easily grasps the reality that a warming world increases the likelihood of certain events just as say a loaded dice could increase the likelihood of throwing a six or an athlete cheating with drugs is more likely to win a race.
Plenty of reports mentioning global warming in the context of pleasant events while also able to recognise that it's a threat overall, eg warm weather in the UK, novel wildlife turning up due to poleward range expansion etc.
When are climate activists going to realize that calling every extreme weather event climate change is detrimental to the cause.
It's the opposite. When 1-in-1,000 year events occur with increasing frequency, as predicted by earlier climate modeling, then it adds to the body of evidence that AGW is very real. For ordinary people AGW becomes a tangible experience and not just an abstract theory, and for most it becomes more convincing, not less.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
