It may be premature to blame global warming for Harvey

[jmyrlefuller]

http://buffalonews.com/2017/09/01/don-paul-it-may-be-premature-to-blame-global-warming-for-harvey/

by Don Paul
September 1, 2017

In my article this week about Hurricane Harvey, I noted ongoing warming may not have “caused” Harvey, but could have contributed to the enormity of the unprecedented rainfall by heating waters in the nearby Gulf to above average. That would increase the amount of evaporation into the atmosphere, leading to more “precipitable water” available for rainfall.

In scientific principle, what I wrote is probably correct. Those who are familiar with my writing for The News know I have written extensively of the overwhelming evidence of a warming climate, and of the evidence human activity is responsible for most of that warming.

Yet in the midst of this horrific and continuing disaster, some of us may be overstating the role of a warming climate in the ferocity of Harvey’s rainfall. As I mentioned, we have had many storms of Harvey’s intensity long before warming accelerated in the 1980s, and we also have had enormous flooding events from slow-moving, weakening tropical cyclones after landfall before the warming sped up.

(excerpt)

[jmyrlefuller]

Note: Don Paul's been a TV meteorologist in my area for over 30 years now. He's a liberal Democrat to be sure, and a firm believer in the AGW hypothesis, but he's good at what he does.

[Sanguine]

Ya think?

[Bigun]

He lost me in the first sentence.  "Ongoing warming"  my a$$!

[jmyrlefuller]

He lost me in the first sentence.  "Ongoing warming"  my a$$!

The whole point of me posting it is that even those who believe in AGW think it's inappropriate to blame Harvey on it.

[Bigun]

The whole point of me posting it is that even those who believe in AGW think it's inappropriate to blame Harvey on it.

I understand that.  I just wanted to note his instensense on getting his propaganda in early.

[andy58-in-nh]

He lost me in the first sentence.  "Ongoing warming"  my a$$!

The "ongoing warming" of which he speaks is in fact, a real phenomenon.

And it is not a natural, but a man-made phenomenon... consequent to the intentional manipulation of data, both current and future, by politicized "scientists" in pursuit of lucrative personal outcomes.

[LateForLunch]

The "ongoing warming" of which he speaks is in fact, a real phenomenon.

And it is not a natural, but a man-made phenomenon... consequent to the intentional manipulation of data, both current and future, by politicized "scientists" in pursuit of lucrative personal outcomes.

hah hah Man Made indeed. More like "cacogen-created". heh

hah hah  the weatherman is "good at what he does"...I guess by that it means reading his lines and pointing at a green screen while watching a monitor? Meteorology is not climatology.

Point of information on AGW. It's what is known as a "speculative conjecture" not a scientific hypothesis nor even a theory (such things may be tested by experimentation and observation). Every single assertion and prediction made by AGW proponents has failed. ALL OF THEM. Not a single prediction of the so-called "models" of atmospheric black body radiation retention driven ostensibly by carbon forcing has proven true. Most of the time the predictions actually show the reverse of what they predict (cooling instead of warming). A theory becomes workable when testing and observation confirm the theoretical model (examples; photon theory, electroweak theory, molecular theory, gravity theory, atomic theory). Conjectures which are not sustained by confirmed observations are usually classified as "false conjectures" except in the case of AGW.

[andy58-in-nh]

hah hah Man Made indeed. More like "cacogen-created". heh

hah hah  the weatherman is "good at what he does"...I guess by that it means reading his lines and pointing at a green screen while watching a monitor? Meteorology is not climatology.

Point of information on AGW. It's what is known as a "speculative conjecture" not a scientific hypothesis nor even a theory (such things may be tested by experimentation and observation). Every single assertion and prediction made by AGW proponents has failed. ALL OF THEM. Not a single prediction of the so-called "models" of atmospheric black body radiation retention driven ostensibly by carbon forcing has proven true. Most of the time the predictions actually show the reverse of what they predict (cooling instead of warming). A theory becomes workable when testing and observation confirm the theoretical model (example, photon theory, electroweak theory, molecular theory, gravity theory). Conjectures which are not sustained by confirmed observations are usually classified as "false conjectures" except in the case of AGW.

Did you really read my post thoroughly, or did you just react to it?

I was accusing AGW proponents of fraud.

[LateForLunch]

Did you really read my post thoroughly, or did you just react to it?

I was accusing AGW proponents of fraud.

Of course I got that. the " hah hah" is usually taken as representing enjoyment of the intended humor. Did you feel attacked? Please note the term "point of information". That usually means that the initial premise is not being challenged, only clarified. AGW does not even deserve to be called a theory. Complimenting your fine post, not challenging it?
Sorry if you felt attacked.

I thought your post was excellent!!

[andy58-in-nh]

Of course I got that. the " hah hah" is usually taken as representing enjoyment of the intended humor. Did you feel attacked? Please note the term "point of information". That usually means that the initial premise is not being challenged, only clarified. AGW does not even deserve to be called a theory. Complimenting your fine post, not challenging it?
Sorry if you felt attacked.

I thought your post was excellent!!

Honestly, I wasn't certain. Not your fault at all, though. It's just been a little "touchy" around here lately.     

[bolobaby]

This thread is...

[LateForLunch]

This thread is...

hah hah that's better than what WTF would have posted. So thanks for your restraint. Here's an example:

[Bigun]

The "ongoing warming" of which he speaks is in fact, a real phenomenon.

And it is not a natural, but a man-made phenomenon... consequent to the intentional manipulation of data, both current and future, by politicized "scientists" in pursuit of lucrative personal outcomes.

Well yeah!  But that doesn't mean there is ACTUAL "ongoing" warming does it?

[LateForLunch]

Well yeah!  But that doesn't mean there is ACTUAL "ongoing" warming does it?

He was joking. It was a jest. I posted similarly (seriously) to the joke. You are right of course Man-Who-Wishes-to-Dissolve-the-IRS. Any measurements of average global atmospheric temperature (measured over  time) showing elevation, are either within the margin of error or indicates the opposite (cooling). Global Warming, (man-caused or otherwise), is by all strong evidence, a product of data-manipulation (falsification, tampering under pretext of "adjusting") or willful "expert" misrepresentation (obfuscation, bald-faced lying by amoral 'Crats with technical degrees). Just as the Soviet Union, the AGW fanatics have fallen back on the only way they can garner support from the population, raw mendacity.

I always like to ask this question of ecoparanoid AGW fanatics:

Q: What is the coldest thing in the universe? Dry ice? Liquid nitrogen.? Liquid oxygen?

A: The empty space, in which our planet will be wholly and utterly immersed every single moment, of every single day, for the rest of time is far colder than the coldest substance we could possibly create. Without the warmth of the sun, our planet would freeze solid right down to its core.

So really our problem is about as far from global warming as could possibly be imagined. 

[Sanguine]

....

So really our problem is about as far from global warming as could possibly be imagined.

Yes, and isn't it interesting that that is the issue that many of the anti-people group have seized upon?  Not sure what it means, but it's interesting.