Quote:

NOAA Report Destroys Global Warming Link To Extreme Weather Scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have demolished claims by global warming activists that global warming caused or worsened many extreme weather events last year. According to NOAA’s new publication, Explaining Extremes of 2013 from a Climate Perspective, there is no discernible connection between global warming and 2013 extreme weather events such as the California drought, Colorado floods, the UK’s exceptionally cold spring, a South Dakota blizzard, Central Europe floods, a northwestern Europe cyclone, and exceptional snowfall in Europe’s Pyrenees Mountains. The California drought provides a good example of global warming activists making false and irresponsible claims regarding global warming to deliberately mislead people who aren’t familiar with scientific studies and evidence. The liberal Center for American Progress and its media allies such as the Washington Post, San Jose Mercury News, Associated Press, and others have all published stories claiming global warming caused or worsened the ongoing California drought. Scientists, however, say just the opposite. “[F]or the California drought, which was investigated by three teams from the United States, human factors were found not to have influenced the lack of rainfall,” NOAA reported in an accompanying press release. Adding additional emphasis to the NOAA publication’s findings, scientists reported in the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that natural factors such as ocean current cycles and varying wind patterns caused most of the warming along the U.S. West Coast since 1900. The next time you hear politicians and global warming activists claim global warming is causing or worsening extreme weather events, know that the objective science shows they are telling self-serving lies. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/10/09/noaa-destroys-global-warming-link-to-extreme-weather/#2fe09a3950c8

Nice find Baron.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 11^th, 2018 at 8:50pm:

Nice find Baron.

Have you checked with the snake oil salesman to see if this is also relevant to the alleged coming Ice Age of yours?

Come on messenger, get to it.  Message!

Bobby. wrote on Jan 11^th, 2018 at 8:50pm:

Nice find Baron.

Thanks Bobby

;)

Aussie wrote on Jan 11^th, 2018 at 8:58pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 11th, 2018 at 8:50pm: Nice find Baron. Have you checked with the famous David DuByne to see if this is also relevant to the alleged coming Ice Age of yours? Come on messenger, get to it.  Message!

I told David DuByne.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDSmWmpE6HU


Quote:

Sir Bobby 2 hours ago Good video David. Please watch this video - it explains quite a lot about feedback loops: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc Some discussion is here: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464603949/4230#4232

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 11^th, 2018 at 8:59pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 11th, 2018 at 8:50pm: Nice find Baron. Thanks Bobby ;)

Keep up the good work.  :)

read the report, don't rely on this dishonest assessment of a small part of it.

You do know that these guys are funded by Exxon Mobil ?

Bobby. wrote on Jan 11^th, 2018 at 9:23pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 11th, 2018 at 8:58pm: Bobby. wrote on Jan 11th, 2018 at 8:50pm: Nice find Baron. Have you checked with the famous David DuByne to see if this is also relevant to the alleged coming Ice Age of yours? Come on messenger, get to it.  Message! I told David DuByne. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDSmWmpE6HU Quote: Sir Bobby 2 hours ago Good video David. Please watch this video - it explains quite a lot about feedback loops: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc Some discussion is here: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464603949/4230#4232

Really.....and you reckon you are Moderator material.....sneakily altering what people post....(in this case....me.)  Nah.  Not on Bobby.

No Moderator post for you!

Dnarever wrote on Jan 11^th, 2018 at 9:30pm:

You do know that these guys are funded by Exxon Mobil ?

Is that the same Exxon-Mobil that published their research into climate change? over 50 papers.

http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/global/files/energy-and-environment/climate_peer_reviewed_publications_1980s_forward.pdf

Did you see the latest?

"Exxon Mobil launched a legal counterattack Monday against seven cities in California that want state courts to force the oil company to pay for infrastructure improvements to help them adapt to climate change.

The oil giant argued that it and other Texas-based energy firms have become the target of a “conspiracy” among liberal state attorneys general and other officials seeking to blame it for driving up emissions that are causing the earth’s temperature to rise.

“ExxonMobil finds itself directly in that conspiracy’s crosshairs,” the company’s attorneys explained in legal documents filed in a Texas state district court Monday night.

“Even though it has long acknowledged the risks presented by climate change, supported the Paris climate accords, and backed a revenue-neutral carbon tax, ExxonMobil has nevertheless been targeted by state and local governments for pretextual investigations and litigation intended to cleanse the public square of alternative viewpoints,” Exxon argued."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/exxon-launches-counterattack-against-california-based-climate-conspiracy-lawsuits/article/2645352

This follows some of the Democrat Attorney's General starting so-called RICO investigations into Exxon-Mobil, supported by Greenpeace et al. The Attorney's Generals backtracked fast when Exxon-Mobil fought back.

Is it that same Exxon-Mobile? Perhaps you have some evidence you want to provide?

Aussie wrote on Jan 11^th, 2018 at 9:59pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 11th, 2018 at 9:23pm: Aussie wrote on Jan 11th, 2018 at 8:58pm: Bobby. wrote on Jan 11th, 2018 at 8:50pm: Nice find Baron. Have you checked with the famous David DuByne to see if this is also relevant to the alleged coming Ice Age of yours? Come on messenger, get to it.  Message! I told David DuByne. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDSmWmpE6HU Quote: Sir Bobby 2 hours ago Good video David. Please watch this video - it explains quite a lot about feedback loops: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc Some discussion is here: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464603949/4230#4232 Really.....and you reckon you are Moderator material.....sneakily altering what people post....(in this case....me.)  Nah.  Not on Bobby. No Moderator post for you!

OK - in future - I will just point out your disrespect for attacking David DuByne as a snake oil salesman.

Otherwise - I'll just ignore your nasty trolling posts.

Once again - Aussie attacks the man not the message.

Nothing justifies you changing my posts Bobby, nothing.  I doubt you ever had the slightest chance of being made Mod of this Forum, but whatever that chance is/was, you just blew it.

Dubyne IS a snake oil salesman.  Gawd, that last video I began to watch started off with some images of a bakery somewhere in Africa, (I guess he stole them from somewhere) and went on to other totally unrelated (except by him) stuff.

Just rubbish, and you, because you are a looney fringe dweller just like Light, lap it up as Holy Writ.  Sorry, Bobby, I'm not a fool.

Why do posters take the easy way out-
just put labels on someone they don't like?

Call them a snake oil salesman - don't say why -
that would be too intellectually difficult.

Think of any form of abuse -
argumentum ad hominem.


From Ozpolitics own guidelines:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#ad%20hominem


ad hominem


"You are an idiot, therefore you are wrong."

An ad hominem (short for argumentum ad hominem) is a personal attack. It is by far the most common logical fallacy encountered in online forums. It carries the assumption that by discrediting your opponent, you are also discrediting their argument. However, this would lead to the absurd situation that an argument is correct if one person uses it, and false if another uses it. Inexperienced debaters often fall for this and feel the need to defend their reputation against a troll, otherwise it will invalidate the point they are trying to make in the eyes of others.

An ad hominem is not always a logical fallacy. For example, if someone claims that their point of view on a technical issue carries more weight because they are a scientist then it would be reasonable to point out that they did not complete their PhD. It would not be reasonable to point out that they are divorced, or a socialist.

Merely insulting someone is not technically an ad hominem unless it is done in a way that discredits their argument – however, it is still inappropriate.

The opposite fallacy to ad hominem is ‘appeal to authority,’ claiming that the good qualities of a person making an argument support that argument.

Abstract:


Quote:

Attribution of extreme events is a challenging science and one that is currently undergoing considerable evolution. In this paper, 20 different research groups explored the causes of 16 different events that occurred in 2013. The findings indicate that human-caused climate change greatly increased the risk for the extreme heat wavesassessed in this report. How human influence affected other types of events such as droughts, heavy rain events, and storms was less clear, indicating that natural variability likely played a much larger role in these extremes. Multiple groups chose to look at both the Australian heat waves and the California drought, providing an opportunity to compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies. There was considerable agreement about the role anthropogenic climate change played in the events between the different assessments. This year three analyses were of severe storms and none found an anthropogenic signal. However, attribution assessments of these types of events pose unique challenges due to the often limited observational record. When human-influence for an event is not identified with the scientific tools available to us today, this means that if there is a human contribution, it cannot be distinguished from natural climate.

http://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/assets/File/publications/BAMS_EEE_2013_Full_Report.pdf

The date of this paper is Sep 2014, the science has moved on from then! Event attribution to AGW is a fast growing area in climate research. For example read:

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060069847

In any case, the science was clear that anthropogenic causes (our reckless emission of greenhouse gases) led to extreme heat events.

That anthropogenic causes lie behind more and more extreme precipitation causing floods is easy to see in general: as the seas and the atmosphere warm up there is more evaporation followed in due course by more precipitation, e.g. Hurricane Harvey dumping 52" of rain on Houston in just one week. But attributing AGW to particular storms presented difficulties in 2014.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 8:50am:

That anthropogenic causes lie behind more and more extreme precipitation causing floods is easy to see in general: as the seas and the atmosphere warm up there is more evaporation followed in due course by more precipitation, e.g. Hurricane Harvey dumping 52" of rain on Houston in just one week. But attributing AGW to particular storms presented difficulties in 2014.

Yes. And it still does.

California - 200 year drought -  before AGW. So plenty of natural variation.

Claims of AGW for Cyclone Harvey - but Harvey stalled over Houston for 4 days, constantly being replenished. But it was AGW "wot dunnit".

From your link -

"Today, scientists still generally agree that it's impossible to attribute any individual weather phenomenon solely to climate change. Storms, fires, droughts and other events are influenced by a variety of complex factors. And they're all acting at once, including both natural components of the climate system and sometimes unrelated human activities. For instance, a wildfire may be made more likely by hot, dry weather conditions, and by human land-use practices."

"New scientific data debunks the hyperventilating journalists suggesting the latest hurricanes to hit the United States, Harvey and Irma, were the cause of man-made Climate Change.

As explained by environmental analyst Nicholas Loris — who cites findings and analysis from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration and the National Hurricane Center — "Man-made warming did not cause Harvey and Irma."

"As carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions have increased, there have been no trends in global tropical cycle landfalls," states Loris. "Before Harvey and Irma, with a little bit of luck, the United States was in a 12-year hurricane drought. More importantly, the average number of hurricanes per decade reaching landfall in the U.S. has fallen over the past 160 years." "
https://www.dailywire.com/news/21289/study-no-hurricanes-harvey-and-irma-were-not-amanda-prestigiacomo

And then there were the claims that the four hurricanes at one time was confirmation of AGW. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Damn JM you are getting sillier and sillier.

Aussie wrote on Jan 11^th, 2018 at 10:41pm:

Nothing justifies you changing my posts Bobby, nothing.  I doubt you ever had the slightest chance of being made Mod of this Forum, but whatever that chance is/was, you just blew it. Dubyne IS a snake oil salesman.  Gawd, that last video I began to watch started off with some images of a bakery somewhere in Africa, (I guess he stole them from somewhere) and went on to other totally unrelated (except by him) stuff. Just rubbish, and you, because you are a looney fringe dweller just like Light, lap it up as Holy Writ.  Sorry, Bobby, I'm not a fool.

you are a fool and now you can go away- a long way away

Bobby. wrote on Jan 11^th, 2018 at 10:31pm:

... I'll just ignore your nasty trolling posts.

Excellent idea Bobby    ;)

lee wrote on Jan 11^th, 2018 at 10:08pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 11th, 2018 at 9:30pm: You do know that these guys are funded by Exxon Mobil ? Is that the same Exxon-Mobil that published their research into climate change? over 50 papers. http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/global/files/energy-and-environment/climate_peer_reviewed_publications_1980s_forward.pdf Did you see the latest? "Exxon Mobil launched a legal counterattack Monday against seven cities in California that want state courts to force the oil company to pay for infrastructure improvements to help them adapt to climate change. The oil giant argued that it and other Texas-based energy firms have become the target of a “conspiracy” among liberal state attorneys general and other officials seeking to blame it for driving up emissions that are causing the earth’s temperature to rise. “ExxonMobil finds itself directly in that conspiracy’s crosshairs,” the company’s attorneys explained in legal documents filed in a Texas state district court Monday night. “Even though it has long acknowledged the risks presented by climate change, supported the Paris climate accords, and backed a revenue-neutral carbon tax, ExxonMobil has nevertheless been targeted by state and local governments for pretextual investigations and litigation intended to cleanse the public square of alternative viewpoints,” Exxon argued." http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/exxon-launches-counterattack-against-california-based-climate-conspiracy-lawsuits/article/2645352 This follows some of the Democrat Attorney's General starting so-called RICO investigations into Exxon-Mobil, supported by Greenpeace et al. The Attorney's Generals backtracked fast when Exxon-Mobil fought back. Is it that same Exxon-Mobile? Perhaps you have some evidence you want to provide?

And they fund people who publish anti climate change articles which is the point.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 8:13pm:

And they fund people who publish anti climate change articles which is the point.

So if true,  it is ok to pay for articles that promote climate change but not the other way around?

That really is hypocritical isn't it? ;)

" We have the same concerns as people everywhere – and that is how to provide the world with the energy it needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.

ExxonMobil is taking action by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, supporting research that leads to technology breakthroughs and participating in constructive dialogue on policy options.

Addressing climate change, providing economic opportunity and lifting billions out of poverty are complex and interrelated issues requiring complex solutions. There is a consensus that comprehensive strategies are needed to respond to these risks."

http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position

lee wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 8:20pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 12th, 2018 at 8:13pm: And they fund people who publish anti climate change articles which is the point. So if true,  it is ok to pay for articles that promote climate change but not the other way around? That really is hypocritical isn't it? ;) " We have the same concerns as people everywhere – and that is how to provide the world with the energy it needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks. ExxonMobil is taking action by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, supporting research that leads to technology breakthroughs and participating in constructive dialogue on policy options. Addressing climate change, providing economic opportunity and lifting billions out of poverty are complex and interrelated issues requiring complex solutions. There is a consensus that comprehensive strategies are needed to respond to these risks." http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position

Not like they don't have a vested interest is it ?

Same as the smoking industry were very successful at doing ?

Dnarever wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 8:27pm:

Not like they don't have a vested interest is it ?

Didn't answer the question HYPOCRITE. ;D ;D ;D


Dnarever wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 8:27pm:

Same as the smoking industry were very successful at doing ?

There is far more evidence for smoking causing cancer than there is for AGW.

Show us the evidence; not climate models but evidence.

lee wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 8:20pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 12th, 2018 at 8:13pm: And they fund people who publish anti climate change articles which is the point. So if true,  it is ok to pay for articles that promote climate change but not the other way around? That really is hypocritical isn't it? ;) " We have the same concerns as people everywhere – and that is how to provide the world with the energy it needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks. ExxonMobil is taking action by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, supporting research that leads to technology breakthroughs and participating in constructive dialogue on policy options. Addressing climate change, providing economic opportunity and lifting billions out of poverty are complex and interrelated issues requiring complex solutions. There is a consensus that comprehensive strategies are needed to respond to these risks." http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position

So if true,  it is ok to pay for articles that promote climate change but not the other way around?

Who with a vested interest is paying to produce supportive climate change articles ?

Anyone doing this for either side is wrong. It isn't science when you have decided on the outcome and are only making the data fit your pre determined result.

Like this report on the NOAA article where they find a different outcome to that of the report by only considering a small part of the report and interpreting it creatively.

NOAA report destroys climate change idiots BS

The truth is that this is not correct.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 8:57pm:

Who with a vested interest is paying to produce supportive climate change articles ?

Try googling Rockefeller funding climate science or similar.
Try googling Rockefeller funding for Greenpeace.

Just a couple of hits.
https://theartofthehierophant.wordpress.com/2016/06/08/rockefeller-part-1-controlling-the-game/comment-page-1/
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/08/big-green-hypocrites/


Dnarever wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 8:57pm:

Like this report on the NOAA article where they find a different outcome to that of the report by only considering a small part of the report and interpreting it creatively. NOAA report destroys climate change idiots BS The truth is that this is not correct.

The truth is you haven't read the report so you don't know.

You can read it at this link -
http://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/assets/File/publications/BAMS_EEE_2013_Full_Report.pdf

lee wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 9:27pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 12th, 2018 at 8:57pm: Who with a vested interest is paying to produce supportive climate change articles ? Try googling Rockefeller funding climate science or similar. Try googling Rockefeller funding for Greenpeace. Just a couple of hits. https://theartofthehierophant.wordpress.com/2016/06/08/rockefeller-part-1-controlling-the-game/comment-page-1/ https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/08/big-green-hypocrites/ Dnarever wrote on Jan 12th, 2018 at 8:57pm: Like this report on the NOAA article where they find a different outcome to that of the report by only considering a small part of the report and interpreting it creatively. NOAA report destroys climate change idiots BS The truth is that this is not correct. The truth is you haven't read the report so you don't know. You can read it at this link - http://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/assets/File/publications/BAMS_EEE_2013_Full_Report.pdf

Have a look at post 6, why would I recommend for people read the report if I hadn't done so myself.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 10:00pm:

Have a look at post 6, why would I recommend for people read the report if I hadn't done so myself.

Big noting yourself? I don't know.

So let's have a look at that Abstract.

"The findings indicate that human-caused climate change greatly increased the risk for the extreme heat waves assessed in this report. How human influence affected other types of events such as droughts, heavy rain events, and storms was less clear, indicating that natural variability likely played a much larger role in these extremes. "

Maybe natural variability played the whole role? ;)

Heat waves - "The Australian summer of 2012/13 was the warmest since records began in 1910 (Bureau of Meteorology 2013a). "

Actually records go back further than 1880. Back then, like now, there were large areas of the continent with no weather stations. So much for measuring heatwaves in Australia.

California Droughts - "The  2013  event  in  historical  context.  The 12-month precipitation and GPH anomalies are both unprecedented in the observational record (Fig. 2.1a,e). "

Figure 2.1c only goes back to about 1900. California has longer records than that.

Then of course we have "BEGINNING about 1,100 years ago, what is now California baked in two droughts, the first lasting 220 years and the second 140 years. Each was much more intense than the mere six-year dry spells that afflict modern California from time to time, new studies of past climates show. The findings suggest, in fact, that relatively wet periods like the 20th century have been the exception rather than the rule in California for at least the last 3,500 years, and that mega-droughts are likely to recur."

www.nytimes.com/1994/07/19/science/severe-ancient-droughts-a-warning-to-california.html?pagewanted=all

Published 1994.

Heavy rain events - "Nonetheless, the 2013 heavy rainfall event was large in spatial scale. Weather predictability of the event per se is not addressed herein (see Hamill 2014), but rather how climate change may have affected the relative likelihood of heavy precipitation in this large region. For this purpose, the modeled statistics of  heavy  five-day  rainfall  of  the recent 30-year period (1983–2012) are compared to that of the last 30 years of the 19th century."

Right climate models again.

Storms - " While these anomalies were significantly less than those associated with other blizzards in the region, they were comparable to 24 major snowstorms in Grumm and Hart (2001). These moderately strong anomalies suggest the storm system was intense, regardless of season, but not unprecedented in terms of 500-hPa heights."

Oh, NOT unprecedented.

Perhaps you did read it, just didn't understand it. ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 8:50am:

Abstract: Quote: Attribution of extreme events is a challenging science and one that is currently undergoing considerable evolution. In this paper, 20 different research groups explored the causes of 16 different events that occurred in 2013. The findings indicate that human-caused climate change greatly increased the risk for the extreme heat wavesassessed in this report. How human influence affected other types of events such as droughts, heavy rain events, and storms was less clear, indicating that natural variability likely played a much larger role in these extremes. Multiple groups chose to look at both the Australian heat waves and the California drought, providing an opportunity to compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies. There was considerable agreement about the role anthropogenic climate change played in the events between the different assessments. This year three analyses were of severe storms and none found an anthropogenic signal. However, attribution assessments of these types of events pose unique challenges due to the often limited observational record. When human-influence for an event is not identified with the scientific tools available to us today, this means that if there is a human contribution, it cannot be distinguished from natural climate. http://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/assets/File/publications/BAMS_EEE_2013_Full_Report.pdf The date of this paper is Sep 2014, the science has moved on from then! Event attribution to AGW is a fast growing area in climate research. For example read: https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060069847 In any case, the science was clear that anthropogenic causes (our reckless emission of greenhouse gases) led to extreme heat events. That anthropogenic causes lie behind more and more extreme precipitation causing floods is easy to see in general: as the seas and the atmosphere warm up there is more evaporation followed in due course by more precipitation, e.g. Hurricane Harvey dumping 52" of rain on Houston in just one week. But attributing AGW to particular storms presented difficulties in 2014.

dear Monk,
I thought you weren't going to post here?

Quote:

NOAA Report Destroys Global Warming Link To Extreme Weather Scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have demolished claims by global warming activists that global warming caused or worsened many extreme weather events last year.(2013)

I agree with the NOAA on this one.
No one single weather event can either prove or disprove global warming.
Global warming is about long term trends and probabilities that can only be seen over decades. This isn't "sexy" enough for the media though.

lee wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 11:08pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 12th, 2018 at 10:00pm: Have a look at post 6, why would I recommend for people read the report if I hadn't done so myself. Big noting yourself? I don't know. So let's have a look at that Abstract. "The findings indicate that human-caused climate change greatly increased the risk for the extreme heat waves assessed in this report. How human influence affected other types of events such as droughts, heavy rain events, and storms was less clear, indicating that natural variability likely played a much larger role in these extremes. " Maybe natural variability played the whole role? ;) Heat waves - "The Australian summer of 2012/13 was the warmest since records began in 1910 (Bureau of Meteorology 2013a). " Actually records go back further than 1880. Back then, like now, there were large areas of the continent with no weather stations. So much for measuring heatwaves in Australia. California Droughts - "The  2013  event  in  historical  context.  The 12-month precipitation and GPH anomalies are both unprecedented in the observational record (Fig. 2.1a,e). " Figure 2.1c only goes back to about 1900. California has longer records than that. Then of course we have "BEGINNING about 1,100 years ago, what is now California baked in two droughts, the first lasting 220 years and the second 140 years. Each was much more intense than the mere six-year dry spells that afflict modern California from time to time, new studies of past climates show. The findings suggest, in fact, that relatively wet periods like the 20th century have been the exception rather than the rule in California for at least the last 3,500 years, and that mega-droughts are likely to recur." www.nytimes.com/1994/07/19/science/severe-ancient-droughts-a-warning-to-california.html?pagewanted=all Published 1994. Heavy rain events - "Nonetheless, the 2013 heavy rainfall event was large in spatial scale. Weather predictability of the event per se is not addressed herein (see Hamill 2014), but rather how climate change may have affected the relative likelihood of heavy precipitation in this large region. For this purpose, the modeled statistics of  heavy  five-day  rainfall  of  the recent 30-year period (1983–2012) are compared to that of the last 30 years of the 19th century." Right climate models again. Storms - " While these anomalies were significantly less than those associated with other blizzards in the region, they were comparable to 24 major snowstorms in Grumm and Hart (2001). These moderately strong anomalies suggest the storm system was intense, regardless of season, but not unprecedented in terms of 500-hPa heights." Oh, NOT unprecedented. Perhaps you did read it, just didn't understand it. ;)

Quote:

Big noting yourself?

I thought that showing that I had read the report was a reasonable response to your post advising me to read the report ? But you left that bit out ?



lee wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 9:27pm:

The truth is you haven't read the report so you don't know. You can read it at this link - http://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/assets/File/publications/BAMS_EEE_2013_Full_Report.pdf

lee wrote on Jan 12^th, 2018 at 11:08pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 12th, 2018 at 10:00pm: Have a look at post 6, why would I recommend for people read the report if I hadn't done so myself. Big noting yourself? I don't know. So let's have a look at that Abstract. "The findings indicate that human-caused climate change greatly increased the risk for the extreme heat waves assessed in this report. How human influence affected other types of events such as droughts, heavy rain events, and storms was less clear, indicating that natural variability likely played a much larger role in these extremes. " Maybe natural variability played the whole role? ;) Heat waves - "The Australian summer of 2012/13 was the warmest since records began in 1910 (Bureau of Meteorology 2013a). " Actually records go back further than 1880. Back then, like now, there were large areas of the continent with no weather stations. So much for measuring heatwaves in Australia. California Droughts - "The  2013  event  in  historical  context.  The 12-month precipitation and GPH anomalies are both unprecedented in the observational record (Fig. 2.1a,e). " Figure 2.1c only goes back to about 1900. California has longer records than that. Then of course we have "BEGINNING about 1,100 years ago, what is now California baked in two droughts, the first lasting 220 years and the second 140 years. Each was much more intense than the mere six-year dry spells that afflict modern California from time to time, new studies of past climates show. The findings suggest, in fact, that relatively wet periods like the 20th century have been the exception rather than the rule in California for at least the last 3,500 years, and that mega-droughts are likely to recur." www.nytimes.com/1994/07/19/science/severe-ancient-droughts-a-warning-to-california.html?pagewanted=all Published 1994. Heavy rain events - "Nonetheless, the 2013 heavy rainfall event was large in spatial scale. Weather predictability of the event per se is not addressed herein (see Hamill 2014), but rather how climate change may have affected the relative likelihood of heavy precipitation in this large region. For this purpose, the modeled statistics of  heavy  five-day  rainfall  of  the recent 30-year period (1983–2012) are compared to that of the last 30 years of the 19th century." Right climate models again. Storms - " While these anomalies were significantly less than those associated with other blizzards in the region, they were comparable to 24 major snowstorms in Grumm and Hart (2001). These moderately strong anomalies suggest the storm system was intense, regardless of season, but not unprecedented in terms of 500-hPa heights." Oh, NOT unprecedented. Perhaps you did read it, just didn't understand it. ;)

Quote:

"The findings indicate that human-caused climate change greatly increased the risk for the extreme heat waves assessed in this report. How human influence affected other types of events such as droughts, heavy rain events, and storms was less clear, indicating that natural variability likely played a much larger role in these extremes. " Maybe natural variability played the whole role?

How human influence affected other types of events such as droughts, heavy rain events, and storms was less clear

Less clear, not proven wrong.

indicating that natural variability likely played a much larger role in these extremes

Or maybe the natural variations were impacted by climate change and maybe it had a substantial impact. Where they talk about water currents there is no indication of how much is normal and what percentage may be influenced by change for instance, we know the water is warmer.

Also where they talk about  extreme ridging events which block storms moving into the California region from the sea. At one point they point out that the recent events have been unusually prolonged and much higher than in the past. In a separate section they associate that hight with the duration and also the hight is associated with reduced sea ice. That is that reduced sea ice in the north is thought to drive a higher ridge which lasts longer.

This is natural variability ? But the amount of sea ICE is linked to global warming so maybe not as natural as first thought.

Not sure why the report didn't link those two assessments made in the same report ?

Dnarever wrote on Jan 13^th, 2018 at 12:50pm:

How human influence affected other types of events such as droughts, heavy rain events, and storms was less clear Less clear, not proven wrong.

And not proven right. ;)


Dnarever wrote on Jan 13^th, 2018 at 12:50pm:

Or maybe the natural variations were impacted by climate change and maybe it had a substantial impact. Where they talk about water currents there is no indication of how much is normal and what percentage may be influenced by change for instance.

Yes. So how can they show it is AGW?


Dnarever wrote on Jan 13^th, 2018 at 12:50pm:

At one point they point out that the recent events have been unusually prolonged and much higher than in the past.

So the 2013/14 drought was unusually more prolonged than the 6 year droughts, let alone the 140 year and 220 year droughts? ;D ;D ;D


Dnarever wrote on Jan 13^th, 2018 at 12:50pm:

But the amount of sea ICE is linked to global warming so maybe not as natural as first thought.

Linked? Can you show the definitive link?

Dnarever wrote on Jan 13^th, 2018 at 12:35pm:

I thought that showing that I had read the report was a reasonable response to your post advising me to read the report ? But you left that bit out ?

Saying people should read the report is NOT the same as having read the report.

You could of course have given a link to the report. That would show at least you knew where it was. it still wouldn't have shown you had read the report.

lee wrote on Jan 13^th, 2018 at 1:16pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 13th, 2018 at 12:50pm: How human influence affected other types of events such as droughts, heavy rain events, and storms was less clear Less clear, not proven wrong. And not proven right. ;) Dnarever wrote on Jan 13th, 2018 at 12:50pm: Or maybe the natural variations were impacted by climate change and maybe it had a substantial impact. Where they talk about water currents there is no indication of how much is normal and what percentage may be influenced by change for instance. Yes. So how can they show it is AGW? Dnarever wrote on Jan 13th, 2018 at 12:50pm: At one point they point out that the recent events have been unusually prolonged and much higher than in the past. So the 2013/14 drought was unusually more prolonged than the 6 year droughts, let alone the 140 year and 220 year droughts? ;D ;D ;D Dnarever wrote on Jan 13th, 2018 at 12:50pm: But the amount of sea ICE is linked to global warming so maybe not as natural as first thought. Linked? Can you show the definitive link?

You don't see a link between less ice and a warmer environment ?

Maybe if you put your head in the bottom of the fridge and have a look for ICE then do the same in the top, note the difference any try to work out the cause ?

Dnarever wrote on Jan 13^th, 2018 at 1:33pm:

You don't see a link between less ice and a warmer environment ?

Is this warmer environment warmer or cooler than the melting temperature of the ice?


Dnarever wrote on Jan 13^th, 2018 at 1:33pm:

Maybe if you put your head in the bottom of the fridge and have a look for ICE then do the same in the top, note the difference any try to work out the cause ?

It is called refrigeration for a reason. ;)

Do you know CO2 can be used as a coolant?

Even in the 1960's satellite photo's show holes in the ice. At a time of cooling.

"In the Arctic, sea ice extent was larger in the 1960s than it is these days, on average. “It was colder, so we expected that,” Gallaher said. What the researchers didn’t expect were “enormous holes” in the sea ice, currently under investigation. “We can’t explain them yet,” Gallaher said."

http://cires.colorado.edu/news/nimbus-data-rescue