Bill Nye, who has become the Jerry Falwell of the STEM generation, is a walking meme for people who don't think being smart is confined to the ability to scream "Science!!" at the top of their lungs.
His crowning achievement was his oft shared tirade against the usefulness of philosophy. Which, to anyone with more than two brain cells and a high school diploma, should have been recognized as a philosophical argument.
Now, in reality, I don't fully deny Climate Change. And I'm not stupid enough to doubt something just because someone with a track record of sounding stupid for the sake of conformity accepts it.
But that someone like Nye, who is celebrated by the media as a genius, and who appears so intolerant of anything but one conclusion about a subject, endorses the notion is enough to give me pause. It also makes me laugh at the media for lifting someone like Nye up on a pedestal. But that's for another post.
Did you know we were experiencing a record hurricane drought? How come this was not being reported for years now? Because it doesn’t fit the media narrative. We repeated and share data points we like; we ignore data points we don’t.
ReplyDeleteSource from 2015:
“https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/major-hurricane-us-landfall-drought-study”
As I've said, I can't remember which publication ran out a month or so ago and warned us that MGMW was not just going to kill us in the future, but it was doing it now with all the horrible weather. Problem? In many places, 'horrible weather' was better over the last decade or so than at other times. But I've noticed that advocates are good at minimizing troubling data and emphasizing convenient data. That's why I accept the most basic premise - our approach to industrialization wasn't always good for the environment. But beyond that, I see a lot of hot air whirling around a small core of truth.
Delete"Did you know we were experiencing a record hurricane drought?"
DeleteDid you know it's not generally advisable to argue for/against global phenomena by pointing to local conditions? The "record hurricane drought" you refer to - about as artificial a construct as you'll find, seeing as it relies on restricting the definition to only Cat 3+ hurricanes making landfall in US - included 3 of the top-10 costliest hurricanes in US history (at the time of the piece you sight, it included the #2 and #3 costliest hurricanes in US history).
So, perhaps the reason the media narrative wasn't focusing on a record hurricane drought was because no such drought existed.
"We repeated and share data points we like; we ignore data points we don’t."
...you don't say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Sandy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Ike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Irene
I have a couple questions. Real questions here. My boys asked me this a while back and I wasn't sure what to say. They referenced the whole 'pointing to local conditions.' But, they said, isn't it all local conditions? For instance, when they had that heat wave hit out west, several news stories interviewed scientists saying that the heat they were having (including so hot it was impacting air travel), just 'local conditions'? For instance, in our neck of the woods, three of the last four years have been stunningly mild. I mean, cooler than normal. This last august, we were wearing light jackets. That's usually the 'dog days' of summer for us. A day under 90 is considered a blessing. Yet more often that not, in recent years, mild, cool, late frosts, even chilly summer days have become the norm. When they bring that up, they're told the same thing: it's a matter of local conditions and doesn't really count. Why, then, did the 'local conditions' out West count?
DeleteAlso, just an observation, but I don't think 'costliest' means anything in the equation, By virtue of more people, more potential destruction, and higher prices, a single Cat 1 a hundred years from now will likely be costlier than anything we see today.
”My boys asked me this a while back and I wasn't sure what to say. They referenced the whole 'pointing to local conditions.' But, they said, isn't it all local conditions?”
DeleteIt’s similar to a Climate vs Weather thing.
For our porpoises, it’s about the problem of trying to claim record hurricane droughts by limiting what counts as a hurricane to 1) a Cat 3+ storm that 2) makes land-fall in the US, and then trying to imply that such a drought has broader implications when 1) relative lulls in tropical cyclones (especially local ones) are not incompatible with a warming climate and 2) the region involved accounts for only about 10% of tropical cyclones worldwide. Not only were there significant hurricanes that hit the US during this period, but there were obviously many other tropical cyclones around the world during the time, including one of the worst ever recorded: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Haiyan
”For instance, when they had that heat wave hit out west, several news stories interviewed scientists saying that the heat they were having (including so hot it was impacting air travel), just 'local conditions'?”
This feels like a sentence that’s been run through Google Translate too many times. What’s your question?
”For instance, in our neck of the woods, three of the last four years have been stunningly mild. I mean, cooler than normal. This last august, we were wearing light jackets. That's usually the 'dog days' of summer for us. A day under 90 is considered a blessing. Yet more often that not, in recent years, mild, cool, late frosts, even chilly summer days have become the norm. When they bring that up, they're told the same thing: it's a matter of local conditions and doesn't really count. Why, then, did the 'local conditions' out West count?”
Again, even assuming this is accurate, this is a weather vs. climate thing. Ohio may well have experienced milder summers than normal these past few years (though I would bet that overall, year-round average temps have still gone up), and yet we keep seeing hotter and hotter average temps across the globe. 2013 and 2014 were both some of the hottest years on record, that didn’t stop the 2013-2014 polar vortex from giving me my coldest winter experience ever.
“Also, just an observation, but I don't think 'costliest' means anything in the equation, By virtue of more people, more potential destruction, and higher prices, a single Cat 1 a hundred years from now will likely be costlier than anything we see today.”
Well Dave, that's a bad observation since, in this equation, 'costliest' does mean *something*. At the very least it means that over $100 billion in damage was done by hurricanes during a supposed record hurricane drought.
Now, I do take what I think is your larger point. It’s entirely possible that the cost of the damage wrought by future storms will dwarf what we see today. It’s entirely possible that the cost of the damage today is inflated vs. past storms due to increases in population, etc. However, it’s also entirely possible that while damage costs are inflated vs. the past, that death tolls are suppressed vs. past (due to more advanced warning, more transportation options, etc). These possibilities are also entirely beside the point. The point, I would have thought obvious, was that hurricanes less than Cat 3 can still be quite devastating, and further undermined whatever weak point Ben thought he was making by referring to the so called record hurricane drought.
Two things: They get the difference between weather and climate. Their question is, why do those scientists who are interviewed by the media not seem to get it? After all, what is happening in Flagstaff on a particular day is certainly more weather than the last several years of trends in our corner of the Midwest. Yet they had no problem saying that was 'because of global warming.' Then what about cooling over here? Why does that not prove anything, yet what happened on a given day proof of everything?
DeleteThe broader point, cost-wise, is the point. Whatever the strength, frequency or intensity of hurricanes can certainly be used to trace the overall trends relative to climate. How much damage they do cost-wise is, well, irrelevant. At the rate we're going, in 40 years a Category 1 storm will do more financial damage than what we've seen this year so far. And that would prove nothing at all climate-wise (though it could be used to argue economics and finances).
"Yet they had no problem saying that was 'because of global warming.' Then what about cooling over here? Why does that not prove anything, yet what happened on a given day proof of everything? "
DeleteFirst, even assuming this is what "those scientists" said, there's a difference between saying that [X is due to global warming] and saying [X proves global warming]. You seem to be conflating the two. I think most climate scientists would probably hesitate to say that any individual weather event was due to global warming. They'd be far more likely to use language like 'global warming makes the kind of heat waves we're seeing more probable'.
"The broader point, cost-wise, is the point. Whatever the strength, frequency or intensity of hurricanes can certainly be used to trace the overall trends relative to climate. How much damage they do cost-wise is, well, irrelevant. At the rate we're going, in 40 years a Category 1 storm will do more financial damage than what we've seen this year so far. And that would prove nothing at all climate-wise (though it could be used to argue economics and finances)."
This remains a terrible point. First of all, [cost of damage] is certainly no less arbitrary a metric to use than [only considering cat 3+ hurricanes making landfall in the US] when it comes telling us anything about climate change. Second of all, we're not talking about comparing hurricanes that are hundreds of years apart, or even forty years apart. We're talking about hurricanes that did as much if not more damage than stronger hurricanes less than ten years before them, but were excluded from consideration in an attempt to construct a 'record hurricane drought'. At the end of the day, the fact is, there was no ten year hurricane drought.
Comparing power and strength and number of hurricanes, again no problem. But not the costs. By those standards, it's clear that Iron Man was a bigger smash hit than Star Wars in the 1970s since it made so much more money. Cost proves nothing about climate.
DeleteAs for the first point, nobody said 'this proves...', but they spent several days running stories about that heat wave and the impact it had, complete with scientists drawing the connection to MMGW. All we're saying is, that was just 'weather.' If that can be used to say 'due to global warming', then please explain how wearing jackets at the end of August when that has been shorts and shirts during the same period is also due to global warming.
"Comparing power and strength and number of hurricanes, again no problem. But not the costs. By those standards, it's clear that Iron Man was a bigger smash hit than Star Wars in the 1970s since it made so much more money. Cost proves nothing about climate."
DeleteYou continue making bad arguments. First, we can adjust for inflation and know that Star Wars made more money than Iron Man (SW is #2, IM doesn't crack top-10). Second, we don't have the problem of trying to adjust for a forty year difference in hurricane damages. Only one hurricane in the top-10 is prior to 2000. We're talking about hurricanes in the supposed drought that did more damage than stronger hurricanes just before them. Cost may not be a perfect metric, as I've already acknowledged, but it is a good metric to show why the 'record hurricane drought' is a fiction.
As for how any of this relates to proving anything about climate, you're right in the very narrow sense that damages from hurricanes don't prove anything about climate. Neither does the so-called drought that you seemed to agree proved problematic for global warming. Ben wasn't citing something that "compared power and strength and number of hurricanes", so there was a problem.
"As for the first point, nobody said 'this proves...'"
And yet, I quoted you doing just that...
"If that can be used to say 'due to global warming', then please explain how wearing jackets at the end of August when that has been shorts and shirts during the same period is also due to global warming."
See, you keep saying that you understand climate vs. weather, but then you keep asking these questions. I think if you go back through my previous posts, I suggest also checking the links I put in, you'll find the answers you're looking for. Most people with two brain cells to rub together seem to manage.
In terms of the argument, it seems to be just fine, since we agree. The destruction as it relates to cost doesn’t demonstrate anything about the climate. It says more about population and cost of materials than climate. For just as inflation in movie sales also has to consider population and available markets, so the fact that there are more people with more stuff that can be destroyed, beyond the mere cost of materials and living, is also part of the equation. But not about the climate.
DeleteAs for the drought, I’m sure the numbers can be maneuvered to say it’s worse than ever, or better than ever. I notice the propensity of numbers to invariably say what people want them to say. For me, I don’t doubt that the climate is changing, and that it’s getting warmer. Over all, it’s warmer on average than when I was young. Our winters attest to that. I also have no problem believing that our blank check approach to science, technology and industry are partly to blame.
For me, MMGW is a bit like Jupiter. You know what I mean. Jupiter, they say, is a large ball of gas surrounding a smaller hunk of rock in the center. The actual ‘planet’ is much smaller than Jupiter. It’s just surrounded by a tremendous amount of gas.
Same here. Climate changing (as it always has), getting warmer (that’s happened in history, too) and impacted by our drunk frat boy approach to industry and tech are all probably what we’re seeing here. Around that, of course, is a tremendous amount of politics, agendas, ulterior motives, greed, ego, ambition, and just plain limits on human knowledge. Thus, much of it will eventually turn out to be swirling gas, if not outright hot air.
The battles over drought or not, worse rains here or irrelevant weather there, are just the result of that. As long as I’m not told to sit down, shut up, obey and stop questioning the ‘experts who matter’, I’ll go along with things. I have no way of knowing what will happen to the world if we don’t accept the more progressive demands for solving global warming. I do know what happens in history when people are told their lives are in danger, and they must sit down, shut up and obey or else.
Now, if MMGW advocates begin selling their homes and cars and going public transportation and one room apartments in order to reduce all possible carbon, then I might accept the urgency a little more, but that’s for another post.
"In terms of the argument, it seems to be just fine, since we agree. The destruction as it relates to cost doesn’t demonstrate anything about the climate."
DeleteWe don't agree, except on the narrow point that [the $ amount of damage a hurricane causes doesn't itself prove anything about climate change]. But I never tried to argue that the costs of hurricanes proved anything about climate change, only that they made a mockery of the supposed 'record hurricane drought' construct.
”For just as inflation in movie sales also has to consider population and available markets, so the fact that there are more people with more stuff that can be destroyed, beyond the mere cost of materials and living, is also part of the equation.”
If my main goal was to compare the relative damage of all hurricanes in US history, you might have a point. It would be difficult to factor in the population and infrastructure changes of the various places affected. Unfortunately, that wasn’t what I was setting out to do.
By noting the cost of these hurricanes that didn’t meet the ‘record drought’ criteria, I was:
1) pointing out that there were indeed hurricanes that made landfall in the US during this supposed drought;
2) noting that they were wildly destructive compared to stronger storms occurring just a few years prior;
3) pointing out that #1 and 2 explained why there was no media narrative focusing on record hurricane droughts.
While my initial post wasn’t intended to engage with anything you'd written, noting that there were still terribly destructive storms during this period also showed why pretending like this US hurricane drought was evidence of “better [weather] over the last decade or so than at other times”, as you did, was misguided.
I separately addressed what the implications this supposed drought might have wrt climate change.
Is this finally starting to sink in? Hope so.
"As for the drought, I’m sure the numbers can be maneuvered to say it’s worse than ever, or better than ever. I notice the propensity of numbers to invariably say what people want them to say."
Sure, but one notices that when you thought they made it seem like things were better than ever - and thus problematic for MMGW proponents - you were happy to accept the 'record hurricane drought' fable unquestioningly, all while tut-tutting people for cherry picking data (I can assure you, the irony was delicious). We also notice that you reserved your push-back and questions for the one that challenged the supposed drought.
"For me, I don’t doubt that the climate is changing, and that it’s getting warmer. Over all, it’s warmer on average than when I was young."
Ah yes, well now that this latest skeptical talking point has been debunked, better retreat to 'I don't *fully* deny climate change'. Such lack of conviction, smh.
"For me, MMGW is a bit like Jupiter. You know what I mean. Jupiter, they say, is a large ball of gas surrounding a smaller hunk of rock in the center. The actual ‘planet’ is much smaller than Jupiter. It’s just surrounded by a tremendous amount of gas."
Your flawed understanding of Jupiter might be related to your flawed understanding of MMGW.
The rest of your post is nothing that I haven't seen you write on the subject many times before (I hope you have these canned responses saved somewhere, and aren’t having to retype them each time), and it's neither relevant to the topic I weighed in on or interesting enough to engage with.
So everything about my point was wrong except the point I was making that you agree with. OK, if that floats your boat.
DeleteAs for Jupiter, that was a bit of fun, since we just studied the planets and noted that scientists are not sure of how solid Jupiter's core actually is. You know, fun. Light hearted. Sometimes I think you're French (that’s a Frasier joke, BTW).
And of course it's the same thing I've written before. Duh. It's my viewpoint, based on a common sense observation of how the issue is presented. I wouldn’t buy a used car from most MMGW advocates, based on assessing how they present their case. Just the lack of personal sacrifice when placed in juxtaposition to the hysteria and panic is enough to make even the most fanatic devotee think twice. That I must believe some of the things I'm expected to believe - such as the ulterior motives of skeptics, but the purity of heart of those advocates of MMGW - is more enough to make a sane person question the rest of the narrative. Common sense, that’s what we used to call it back in the day.
Again, not throwing the whole notion out the window. Just not buying the obvious non-scientific baggage that has been attached to the issue.
"So everything about my point was wrong except the point I was making that you agree with. OK, if that floats your boat."
DeleteSometimes I think you're denser that Jupiter's massive layer of metallic hydrogen.
The point we agree on [that hurricane damage costs don't prove anything about climate change] was not something I claimed or implicitly hanged any of my arguments on. It's almost like you keep pointing to this agreement so that you don't have to deal with how I've shown both you and Ben to be misguided.
"Cat 3+ hurricanes making landfall in US - included 3 of the top-10 costliest hurricanes in US history (at the time of the piece you sight, it included the #2 and #3 costliest hurricanes in US history)."
ReplyDeleteYou brought up the issue of costliest relative to Category 3 hurricanes. This was to point out that Cat 3 hurricanes are bad, too, and the definition shouldn't be confined to Cat 4 or worse. Of course a Cat 1 hurricane is bad. Anyone who has been in one knows that. But we're talking about the devastating ones that count for the alarmist reactions required; the high end ones that are used to demonstrate a shift in the climate (see the recent coverage of Irma as proof of MMGW). Just saying hurricanes over or under Cat 4 can be costly is irrelevant. You'd have done better to point out the number of hurricanes in the last 40 years, or why there has been an uptick in severe hurricane in the last century, without bringing up the issue of cost. Which, as you admit, is irrelevant at the end of the day. That would be the gas section of the argument.
"You brought up the issue of costliest relative to Category 3 hurricanes"
DeleteI don't have the patience to outline how the above is not actually what I did.
"This was to point out that Cat 3 hurricanes are bad, too, and the definition shouldn't be confined to Cat 4 or worse."
I see you haven't been carefully reading. The record drought was based on a definition of major hurricanes as Cat 3 or worse making landfall in the US.
"Of course a Cat 1 hurricane is bad. Anyone who has been in one knows that."
And yet you were happy to use the supposed hurricane drought as evidence that "[i]n many places, 'horrible weather' was better over the last decade or so than at other times."
"But we're talking about the devastating ones that count for the alarmist reactions required; the high end ones that are used to demonstrate a shift in the climate (see the recent coverage of Irma as proof of MMGW)."
That's not what I was talking about.
"Just saying hurricanes over or under Cat 4 can be costly is irrelevant."
Not irrelevant to the point I was making.
"You'd have done better to point out the number of hurricanes in the last 40 years, or why there has been an uptick in severe hurricane in the last century, without bringing up the issue of cost."
You'd have done better to try to understand the points being made before trying to weigh in on them.
"Which, as you admit, is irrelevant at the end of the day."
As I've now several times pointed out to you, to the extent that I admit that the cost is irrelevant, it's only as it relates to proving climate change...which, again, is not something I ever claimed it to do, or rested any of my arguments on. I see that my hopes that you had grasped this were misplaced.
And now, unfortunately, the time has come for me to cease inflating your comment #s. I do hope this rare bounty will tide you over these lean times you've fallen on.
I read what you said. I understand the link. The point is, you could have kept it at 'here's why the drought is a fake, there are more hurricanes than ever/hurricanes are more powerful than ever.' You didn't need to bring up the cost at all, which is - as you admit - irrelevant to the greater MMGW debate. Just say 'Yeah, you're right. No point bringing that up.' It's so easy. So, just say that hurricanes are more numerous and powerful than ever. That's all you need to say.
Delete"The point is, you could have kept it at 'here's why the drought is a fake, there are more hurricanes than ever/hurricanes are more powerful than ever.'"
DeleteYes, I certainly could have limited my response in such a way. And, if your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle. I'll never understand this silly 'if you had only done what I thought you should have done' exercise you so often engage in.
I choose not to for good reasons I've already several times explained to you. That you have failed to grasp them is a common theme in our dialogues.
"You didn't need to bring up the cost at all, which is - as you admit - irrelevant to the greater MMGW debate."
For the last time, yes: if my goal had been to address the greater MMGW debate, the cost argument would have been irrelevant.
What you've repeatedly failed to grasp is that Ben made two claims:
1) that there was a record hurricane drought;
2) that the media (intentionally?) ignored the drought.
Talking about the cost of the damages caused by hurricanes during this supposed drought is relevant to undermining both claims.
"Just say 'Yeah, you're right. No point bringing that up.' It's so easy. So, just say that hurricanes are more numerous and powerful than ever. That's all you need to say."
It will be a cold day in hell indeed, when I feel the need to take tips from you on how to construct a good argument.
All speculation about my aunt aside, you can finish the conversation easy enough.
DeleteI'm aware of what Ben said. I'm aware of your response. And no, the cost relative to a drought is entirely pointless, unless Ben was suggesting the drought means there were no hurricanes or damaging storms during that period. Which I'm sure he, as well as anyone not on an arctic island, is aware of not being true. Since that's likely not what he was saying, pointing out that some storms have caused tremendous amount of damage, while noteworthy, is irrelevant. Now, if you're saying by drought Ben must have meant no storms at all, then you might have a better claim to the point. Sorry, but fact is you threw it in when there was no reason to. Hold your breath and stomp all you will, but the fact remains.
Since no reply is forthcoming, a little note to the peanut gallery: Regurgitating talking points, and then following up by endlessly avoiding the issues or hurling digs and insults is not constructing a good argument. Since the good Andre, who specializes in this very tactic of pointless rebuttals, dodging the point at hand, and then following it up by either walking away in the face of evidence and not conceding the obvious, or spewing petty insults and accusations while being extraordinarily thin skinned about the same, demonstrates how this is not good arguing, I'll leave the comments but close the post, to avoid further pointless debate. It's typical post-modern progressive arguing. But not good arguing among adults. And that's what I prefer to see.
Delete