Lindzen got his @$$ kicked!

[_DarkHelmet]

Weak sauce, my husband, weak sauce. Now you're trying to take a queue from RI and play this game of semantics. Only an unreasonable person would take a remark such as this, and from the very casual context of a youtube comment no less, and interpret it in such a literal way. This person was not attempting to argue for proof of a negative.

You have no idea what that person was arguing. Do you know him? Is it one of your sock puppet accounts? If not, you are being unreasonable by assuming he doesn't mean what he said. He made a straight forward statement.

The fact is CO2 cannot drive the climate with a trace amount of less than 0.04% in the atmosphere.

As Res Ipsa pointed out, this is a common talking point from global warming skeptics. The fact that you are avoiding it and trying to change the meaning suggests that even you are embarrassed by it, as you should be.

[_canpakes]

The fact is CO2 cannot drive the climate with a trace amount of less than 0.04% in the atmosphere.

As Res Ipsa pointed out, this is a common talking point from global warming skeptics. The fact that you are avoiding it and trying to change the meaning suggests that even you are embarrassed by it, as you should be.

But wait. He’ll be back again with a 50,000 word screed packed with juvenile insults that totally avoids the question again rather than just honestly defend his position.

Of course, it’s not a defensible position.

[_Dr. Shades]

Dark Helmet (who I'm pretty sure is not Water Dog's husband. C'mon Shades )

??? What does this have to do with me?

[_Res Ipsa]

Dark Helmet (who I'm pretty sure is not Water Dog's husband. C'mon Shades )

??? What does this have to do with me?

LOL. Sorry. It’s the word censor. It’s set to change D H to “my husband”. (As in Dear Husband). Dog was abbreviating Dark Helmet as D H, resulting in Dog referring to Dark Helmet as “my husband.” I assumed you were responsible. If not, I apologize.

[_DoubtingThomas]

"As the Earth’s atmosphere warms, the atmospheric circulation changes. These changes vary by region and time of year, but there is evidence that anthropogenic warming causes a general weakening of summertime tropical circulation1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8. Because tropical cyclones are carried along within their ambient environmental wind, there is a plausible a priori expectation that the translation speed of tropical cyclones has slowed with warming...A highly significant global slowdown of tropical- cyclone translation speed is evident, of −10% over the 68-yr period 1949–2016"

Kossin, James P. "A global slowdown of tropical-cyclone translation speed." Nature 558.7708 (2018): 104

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0158-3

Jesus Christ waterdog! Why are you ignoring the science?

[_DoubtingThomas]

"Extended Data Table 1 Trends in tropical-cyclone translation speed and their statistics"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586- ... 3/tables/1

[_DarkHelmet]

LOL. Sorry. It’s the word censor. It’s set to change D H to “my husband”. (As in Dear Husband). Dog was abbreviating Dark Helmet as D H, resulting in Dog referring to Dark Helmet as “my husband.” I assumed you were responsible. If not, I apologize.

LOL. That explains it. I couldn't figure out why he keeps calling me that. I assumed it was some hipster insult that all the kids are using.

[_Water Dog]

Dark Helmet (who I'm pretty sure is not Water Dog's husband. C'mon Shades )

??? What does this have to do with me?

lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAX2Fo-dTMY

[_Res Ipsa]

LOL. Sorry. It’s the word censor. It’s set to change D H to “my husband”. (As in Dear Husband). Dog was abbreviating Dark Helmet as D H, resulting in Dog referring to Dark Helmet as “my husband.” I assumed you were responsible. If not, I apologize.

LOL. That explains it. I couldn't figure out why he keeps calling me that. I assumed it was some hipster insult that all the kids are using.

I figured that was way more probable than WD getting divorced, marrying you, and no one noticing...

[_Water Dog]

"As the Earth’s atmosphere warms, the atmospheric circulation changes. These changes vary by region and time of year, but there is evidence that anthropogenic warming causes a general weakening of summertime tropical circulation1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8. Because tropical cyclones are carried along within their ambient environmental wind, there is a plausible a priori expectation that the translation speed of tropical cyclones has slowed with warming...A highly significant global slowdown of tropical- cyclone translation speed is evident, of −10% over the 68-yr period 1949–2016"

Kossin, James P. "A global slowdown of tropical-cyclone translation speed." Nature 558.7708 (2018): 104

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0158-3

Jesus Christ waterdog! Why are you ignoring the science?

Oh, sweet Thomas, you don't understand what science is. Here is Chris Landsea, the foremost expert on hurricanes in the world.

There’s no statistical change over a 130-year period. Since 1970, the number of hurricanes globally is flat. I haven’t seen anything that suggests that the hurricane intensity is going to change dramatically. It looks like a pretty tiny change to how strong hurricanes will be. It’s not zero, but it’s in the noise level. It’s very small.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/national-in ... 64611.html

You probably don't recognize the name, but Landsea famously quit the IPCC over this very thing.

Citing a politicized agenda and misrepresentations of climate science, prominent climate scientist Chris Landsea on January 17 resigned his post as a participant in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

....

Landsea is one of the world's leading hurricane researchers, specializing in seasonal and climatic relationships of Atlantic tropical cyclones. He served as chair of the American Meteorological Society's (AMS) Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones for the years 2000-2002. He was recipient of a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Post-Doctoral Fellowship in Climate and Global Change for the period 1995-1996.

In his resignation letter, Landsea documented how the IPCC had sanctioned a "misrepresentation" of hurricane research and issued "unfounded pronouncements" to the media that "subverted and compromised" the scientific assessment of the IPCC's hurricane researchers. According to Landsea, statements made by the IPCC to the media demonstrated "preconceived agendas" that are "scientifically unsound."

https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/ ... =policybot

This paper that you cite, from Nature, is, at best, conjecture. It's a theory, which has not in any way been substantiated through empirical observation. Thomas, you do not understand how this academia stuff works. Getting a paper in a journal isn't hard. These journals are not scripture. They carry no "authoritay" whatsoever. Over time a certain publication may be considered as relevant by the community, but this particular paper you cite certainly has not reached that point. We can review in say 20 years and see how it's doing.

Hurricane Harvey is cited as a potential example, however there are reasons for it stalling over Houston that have nothing to do with supposed man-made climate change. Plus, why are you bringing this up? Kossin supports the point I was making earlier re hurricanes, that an increase in average temperatures, or a decrease in differential temperatures, would result in a slowdown and decrease in frequency.

It is such a funny thing. You have hurricanes, which are a random weather anomaly, and which can be affected by thousands of variables, but people think they can boil it down to just one. And they can't even decide whether they are good or bad. Increase in frequency = bad. No, wait, decrease in frequency is bad. Because that means they will stall out and drop more rain. Or something. Flooding in one area is worse than the hurricane having a larger geographic damage path. Seriously can't make this stuff up.

So how did this theory work out for hurricane Michael which just happened? Answer, it didn't. The hurricane did not stall, it proceeded quickly inland clipping Georgia and Alabama. But hey, it's only one hurricane. Just like Harvey, the one hurricane doesn't make or break a theory. Let's see how it looks after a few hundred hurricanes.