NOAA news conference=Links to summary from NOAA posted

[themusk]

Do I understand you correctly? You think they are digging their heels in about the AMO being more influential because it was in their mind set prior to the GW ruckus?

Not because it was "in their minds prior to" global warming, but because there was good empirical evidence for the AMO affecting hurricane frequency before there has been anything but a dribble of empirical evidence at all about how global warming might affect hurricanes.

[joe_koehle]

Do I understand you correctly? You think they are digging their heels in about the AMO being more influential because it was in their mind set prior to the GW ruckus?

Not because it was "in their minds prior to" global warming, but because there was good empirical evidence for the AMO affecting hurricane frequency before there has been anything but a dribble of empirical evidence at all about how global warming might affect hurricanes.

isn't that the problem, though? how are scientists supposed to collect empirical data on relatively new events? seems like focusing on empirical data can only get us so far, and it may cause scientists to underestimate warming's role in the upswing in TC's

[Jim Hughes]

Do I understand you correctly? You think they are digging their heels in about the AMO being more influential because it was in their mind set prior to the GW ruckus?

Not because it was "in their minds prior to" global warming, but because there was good empirical evidence for the AMO affecting hurricane frequency before there has been anything but a dribble of empirical evidence at all about how global warming might affect hurricanes.

Like I said I am unsure about when the AMO Indices came out. You can research many things more closely when you have hard data like this.

GW researchers have had hard data for quite a while in regards to the many variables included. We shouldn't think that the recent publicized paper regarding the rise in global cyclone intensity is the first one written about the many possible enhancing variables that GW would bring along.

I did not see this news conference, but I must believe that if they are talking about the AMO being the most important, then they honestly believe that it is. And it is not because it had a science backed foothold before GW.

Your argument would hold more water with Gray than NOAA or any other US organization since he was the only one talking about the nature of the cyclical cycle some twenty plus years ago. Nobody was really listening to him back then. It wasn't like all of his papers got a favorable peer-review either.

I am surprised that Jan would let this comment pass by anyway since he was telling someone else, in the GW debate thread, that the science community as a whole is very ethical, and they go by the facts, so they are not swayed by prior belief systems.


Jim

[x-y-no]

I am surprised that Jan would let this comment pass by anyway since he was telling someone else, in the GW debate thread, that the science community as a whole is very ethical, and they go by the facts, so they are not swayed by prior belief systems.


Jim

Well, it's not unethical to be cautious about new ideas ... quite the contrary. And at any rate, I think the kind of things being said here (and my confusion about the basis for their saying them) are hugely different from the assertion being made in that other thread that almost the entire climate science community is deliberately participating in a fraud. Wouldn't you agree?

[Jim Hughes]

I am surprised that Jan would let this comment pass by anyway since he was telling someone else, in the GW debate thread, that the science community as a whole is very ethical, and they go by the facts, so they are not swayed by prior belief systems.


Jim

Well, it's not unethical to be cautious about new ideas ... quite the contrary. And at any rate, I think the kind of things being said here (and my confusion about the basis for their saying them) are hugely different from the assertion being made in that other thread that almost the entire climate science community is deliberately participating in a fraud. Wouldn't you agree?

Your right. The comments are slightly different but it is still about perception. Some people seem to think that the stance about the AMO being the only factor or largest contributor is wrong. This is fine with me but you can not pick and chose who's peer reviewed science is right and who's is wrong. At least not if you want to come across as being unbiased.

I think this season has really tilted your stance about GW and how quickly we should be responding to it now. I recall you being much more neutral when I first joined this forum earlier this summer.

You have every right to draw conclusions from this season's numbers but I would than like to ask you something. Would you honestly have thought less about the global warming importance if this season was extremely quiet ? (Like maybe 2-3 total storms.)

I doubt you would have but maybe I am wrong.


Jim

[x-y-no]

I am surprised that Jan would let this comment pass by anyway since he was telling someone else, in the GW debate thread, that the science community as a whole is very ethical, and they go by the facts, so they are not swayed by prior belief systems.


Jim

Well, it's not unethical to be cautious about new ideas ... quite the contrary. And at any rate, I think the kind of things being said here (and my confusion about the basis for their saying them) are hugely different from the assertion being made in that other thread that almost the entire climate science community is deliberately participating in a fraud. Wouldn't you agree?

Your right. The comments are slightly different but it is still about perception. Some people seem to think that the stance about the AMO being the only factor or largest contributor is wrong. This is fine with me but you can not pick and chose who's peer reviewed science is right and who's is wrong. At least not if you want to come across as being unbiased.

There was no peer-review involved in Dr. Bell's answers as far as I am aware. The categorical statements I was questioning were merely replies to reporters' questions.

That's rather a different thing from the claims by MGC and sponger that the entire body of science supporting anthropogenic global warming is fraudulent. One is a matter of what I would call an ill-considered opinion on the part of an individual, the other a matter of an orchestrated conspiracy of hundreds if not thousands of researchers all cooperating to subvert the science.

I think this season has really tilted your stance about GW and how quickly we should be responding to it now. I recall you being much more neutral when I first joined this forum earlier this summer.

You have every right to draw conclusions from this season's numbers but I would than like to ask you something. Would you honestly have thought less about the global warming importance if this season was extremely quiet ? (Like maybe 2-3 total storms.)

I doubt you would have but maybe I am wrong.


Jim

This hurricane season has had no impact on my overall view of the issue of anthropogenic global warming or what the appropriate policy response would be to AGW. None.