@169. Nigel Depledge :

Vince RN (128) said : “I never said anything like global warming doesn’t cause an increase the frequency or severity of storms, in fact I clearly stated a few times that it obviously does.”
Hang on a sec, wasn’t this discussion on the previous Sandy thread?

It was, then it moved across the the newer thread.

There’s also a great clip on superstorm Sandy and the wider geoclimate implications and context by Greenman3610 linked to my name here or see Hurricane Sandy’s Double Whammy on his youtube channel.

@67. shunt1 :

How was the interaction of cold polar air with hurricane Sandy caused by “global warming” and how did the historical increase of a trace gas like CO2 alter the trajectory of that storm? Darn, that computer model is too large to upload. Still trying to upload to somewhere that can be linked.

Still trying? Then try seeing the clip linked to my name that explains it pretty well I reckon. Or if you can’t be bothered – Unusual Greenland High pressure and weak jetstream.

@ 158. Nigel Depledge :

Note the positioning of the comma that lends meaning to the sentence. Of course, in hindsight I feel that a semicolon would have been more apt.

Glad to see I’m not the only person who keeps mulling over how they put things and mentally editing their comments!

. . . I still find it difficult to accept direct attacks at deniers as good science.

When has anyone here directly attacked a denier?

Sure, we always attack their attempts at arguing against AGW, but an attack on an argument is part of the scientific process, and is not an attack on the person who proposed the argument, even if sometimes that person perceives it as such.

I never said anything like global warming doesn’t cause an increase the frequency or severity of storms, in fact I clearly stated a few times that it obviously does.

Hang on a sec, wasn’t this discussion on the previous Sandy thread?

You never made such a claim, I never said you did, I know your posts well enough from reading you these past couple years to know you would not. Only one person made such a claim, [noen]. I said you can not specifically pin that one storm on global warming, [s]he said I was wrong.

FTFY.

Just for fun on election day, I will play this game:

I will give my name and address and they will hand me the ballot. I will then show my photo ID and demand to know why I was allowed to vote as that person!

It is to teach a lesson.

Let us know how you get on with this game.

Personally, I think it should be illegal to require a picture ID for anything.

This is just nuts.

Do you think that ID cards should be freely transferable between people? Or driving licences? Or passports? A photo is simply the easiest and least intrusive way to make ID specific to one individual (except, probably, in the case of identical twins).

Edited to add: Did I just feed a troll? Bad AliCali!

Not so much feed a troll as deliver an extra kick to one.

However, NAO and other long term cycles have been our primary arguments with “global warming” and why this has been natural.

It is nice that you have recognized things like the NAO and ENSO cycles. That is a very good start.

This is back to your usual style of utterly failing to get the point.

The NAO cycle and others are, of course, well known to climatologists. But they are not a significant cause of the current GW. IOW, scientists have looked into the possibility that the current GW trend is part of a natural cycle, and they have found that the natural cycles cannot explain the GW observations.

Or did you really believe that climatologists have failed to account for such an obvious possibility?

The relevant point here, that you missed, is the impact that AGW has had on the NAO, not vice versa.

Oh, I do fully understand. You make it us as you go along. But when questioned, you have absolutely no answers.

What the hell . . .?

Since when have you ever asked an honest question about global warming without attempting to divert the discussion into trivial local issues?

Besides, if you want to learn about the science of AGW, what the hell are you doing merely demanding answers in a blog comment thread? If you wish to understand, there are plenty of popular-science books that have been written by actual climate scientists. Even you should be able to understand some of these.

Or is it merely easier to take no responsibility for your own ignorance?

If the albedo of Venus (or any other planet) decreased, then there would be a large increase of atmospheric temperature.

Wrong.

The over-simplified version: If the albedo of Venus were to decrease, there would be a commensurate increase of atmospheric temperature.

The correct answer : if the albedo of Venus were to decrease, any change to atmospheric temperature would depend on why the albedo decreased.