In the first major paper of its kind, a new study in the February 17 Nature has found that heavy precipitation is at least partly due to the growing concentration of manmade greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere. A team of scientists from Canada and Scotland used powerful computers to analyze the causes behind the rise in storms and heavy snowfall over the past half century. They found that the likelihood of extreme precipitation on any given day rose by 7% between 1951 and 1999—the years covered by the study. That's outside the bounds of normal variability, and the increase only make sense if rising greenhouse gas emissions and climate change are taken into effect. "Human influence on the climate system has the effect of intensifying precipitation extremes," said Francis Zwiers, a climate researcher at Environment Canada in Toronto and the study's lead researcher.

That conclusion shouldn't be that surprising—climatologists have predicted an uptick in extreme weather events as greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere increase. Since warmer air can carry more water vapor, a warmer planet should see heavier rain and other precepitation—and that's what we've begun to see with actual weather. As an accompanying article to the Nature studies points out, for every 1 C in warming near the Earth's surface, scientists expect a 2-3% increase in total global precipitation.

But it's not global precipitation patterns that should really worry us—it's local rainfall, either too much or too little. We need scientists to be able to tell us whether a certain flood or a certain drought actually can be tied to global warming. And in another study published in Nature this week, that's exactly what a team of climatologists set out to do. With help from computer time donated by the public, the researchers analyzed the severe rains that flooded England and Wales in 2000, leading to some of the worst flooding in British history. They looked at the climate as it actually existed at the time, and then compared it to hypothetical climates as they would have been if human beings had never begun adding greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The researchers concluded that the chances of such a major flood happening at that time were roughly doubled by the rise in greenhouse gases. "Greenhouse gas emissions due to human activity have affected the odds of floods in England and Wales," said physicist Pardeep Pall of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich), who led the Nature research.

Given the billions of dollars for climate adaptation at stake, it's vital for scientists to deliver more rapid and accurate analysis of extreme weather events—like climate change CSI. But we're not there yet—the Nature study of the 2000 floods took a decade of work and incredibly complex computer simulations. But we'll need better analysis not just to predict coming extreme weather events and prepare for them—something that could have averted much of the damage from the terrible floods in Pakistan last summer—but in assigning cause and blame. That will matter for the business world—insurance companies will want to know just what caused devastating floods or storms as they pay out their claims. But it will also impact international climate negotiations. If developing countries—already on the front lines of global warming—can prove that carbon emissions from rich countries are causing what we once referred to as natural catastrophes, they may well be justified in demanding the equivalent of carbon reparations.


http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/02/17/new-studies-show-that-climate-change...


So the science mounts ... when will the hard right embrace science and back Greens policies like a 40% cut in CO2 pollution. If they don't it's enough evidence to call the Liberals and the National Party's financially reckless.

I still say its Mother Nature woody.. how come these guys never mention her? its never a normal part of natural patterns. its always man made..

take comfort in the fact that we will SOON have a all mighty TAX to take care of it.. so you wont have to fret anymore..

wonder if it will go into reverse asap.. or will we have to wait a week or two do you think?...

have  someone up in Darwin and they had a cyclone warning.. she said it was a 4 downgraded to a 3 which by all accounts is not as bad as they are used too... I saw some of it on the news and it looked bad enough to me..she laughed when I got worried about her.lots of rain and wind.. but nothing out of the norm for this time of the year..

____ wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 5:29am:


Sounds like crap to me green.
By the way, which tea leaves did they use, or did they just read sign in cats intestines this time the old fashioned way.
Or was it from icy poles pulled out from the north pole again?
These slapnuts obviously havent heard of El Nino & La Nina.

cods wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 7:49am:


wow, this is the first time I have heard Noah being used as proof that Climate Change is faux.

Well done Mellie, you've reached new heights!


Climate Change can't possibly be happening... look at all the rain we're getting!  And you said the world is warming...fools.

I am glad to know that reputable scientists are at least attempting to quantify the possible negative aspects of us having failed to mitigate our carbon emissions.
The 7% figure quoted from the report, puts it far beyond what we could expect to see from any "natural" variation, and if I had to guess, I would expect they are being very conservative with their pronouncements, due to the obsessive denialist lobby group, which attempts to discredit any and all research which expands on our understanding of climate change.
This attack dog mentality from the denialist camp has seemed to make scientists extremely conservative, and cautious, when it comes to providing the technical backup to the anecdotal evidence we have all experienced, that the climate is changing, and now we are seeing more frequent, and more violent, extreme weather events, because of those changes.

I don't know how many more disastrous extreme weather events we will need to experience before the denialists give up their campaign of obstructing any policy which seeks to contain and curtail Carbon Emissions, but I do know that the longer they choose to block any action, the greater the toll will be for our kids.

But I guess a few more extreme tragedies can go down in the denialist hand book as being appropriate to respond to with, "Sh1t happens" (it is only natural).

____ wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 5:51am:


So you don't think that a drought ending has anything to do with increased rainfall Greens???

What exactly IS the 'natural patterns' for 2011???

BTW - when did humans cease to be part of nature? Are we now super-natural beings?

Isn't what we do part of nature?

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 10:57am:

Mellie knows its true, the Unicorns live at her house. what a tard.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 2:49pm:


I don't know about 5 billion years, to be honest.  But I love how deniers will try to refute science that is available and provide NO EVIDENCE to the contrary. 

YOU KNOW FOR CERTAIN that it didn't happen??

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 8:28am:




XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

HEY SUCKER.SKIP..

WHY DONT YOU TRY TAKING YOUR'RE HEAD OUT OF THAT DARK PLACE AND READING THE POST BEFORE YOU ANSWER.


THE POST WAS ABOUT HUMAN CAUSE JUST LIKE THE SCIENTIST CLAIM.

I think I have made it quite clear where I stand on Human caused climate change

CLIMATE CHANGE is not new.. its has been going on for MILLIONS OF YEARS..

THIS IS FOR SUCKERS SKIP.   get it?

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 10:57am:




is someone meant to understand that?

Do you ride the Unicorn down to the shops, codsy?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 1:17pm:




natural patterns what a hope talk about clutching at straws..

I have already mentioned on here about why the Ancient Egyptians disappeared..all done by scientists not weather ones though more the archaeologist types but never the less years of science and discovery. and yes the reason being a drought one that lasted many many years something like we would never know about..

if scientist .. Al Gore!! can prove to everyone that natural patterns have been a part of the globes weather history for millions of years..

I would like to see that.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 2:51pm:




funny thing I thought the science had been refuted over and over again..

they cant even get the weather report right..lol..supposed to rain here again... wrong again...

simonhall1900 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 2:57pm:




was that the stuff that turned up in Qld and then last night in Darwin..

they keep putting funny names to rain now so I kind of lose count.. if its rain or maybe wind..sometimes simon they come together.. now that could be a pattern!!!. which makes it all very different and it gets called another name..cyclone is a goody then they call it the cyclone season... why ever did they do do you think???????must be a pattern..mmm could be!

skippy. wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 3:02pm:




not quite just dont believe everything I am told by Al Gore thats all.

that great well known scientist!

____ wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 5:29am:


I'm glad you posted that reference. It's an important new paper.  Of course it has been suspected for a while, but now it's conclusive.

cods wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 3:13pm:

So because you dont like AL Gore you refute the opinion of the majority of the science world,. WOW , just WOW.

The meteor that wiped out the jurassic age?

Caused by man made global warming you know.

Kid you not. Just ask Al Gore.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 3:14pm:




he would skip he would?...did you find out how X.Island is only the tip of a vulcano..skip??... its in the middle of the ocean so it must have been some vulcano.

cods wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 3:18pm:


Sorry, I was too busy helping Noah put the animals onto the ark.  



Crazy mellie  You poor sod.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 3:16pm:





gizmo I thought the whole point of this topic was for the true believers.. [suckers] to prove that it hasnt happened before..the icecaps have never melted.. why should those who disagree have to prove anything... if they want to believe who bloody cares.

why they care what I think is a mystery to me... I just dont like taxing something that most who claim they know more than the rest of us have been found to be liar.. but then some prefer lies.. it gets them votes.

I hear Noah is sounding the bell! Looks like it's time.

Only deniers and morons would either misinterpret, or not understand the straightforward point you made, preceptions_now.

The greatest shame of the whole Global warming issue is that the extreme right of politics accepted the lobbying of the energy companies who engineered the denialist campaign, and now that campaign has taken on a life of its own, and otherwise reasonable people can just ignore and reject totally respected and credible scientific opinion, not because of any fault in the science, but based upon their political prejudices alone.

mozzaok wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 3:34pm:

Good to see you here ,Mozz.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 3:32pm:


I can't believe I have to explain this, but hey, this is wha thappens when you deal with right wingers I guess.

You asked for prove that these conditions have never occured before.

I asked you the same question back, because, like perceptions, you are not 5 billion years of age. So, how do you know they didn't happen?

Do I need to write it out in baby language for you?  Seriously?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 3:57pm:


Let's try to stay with what the best science of the day can tell!

Wandering off, into a vitual realm of what if's & maybe's, only serves those who look for confusion!

The facts are that we (humans) haven't been around that long and there were only a few of us at the end of the last warming cycle, which is the one & only that we have experienced and we all but disappeared during the following Ice Age, again the only one we have experienced.

It is interesting, that you defer to a science, in order to disprove a science?

As I said, this has never happened before!
Trust me (I'm not a Politician), I guarantee it and if Public Policy/planning is done on the back of an assumption that it (the usual climate cycle) has happened before and we are still here, then we will risk the entire future of humanity, on a false premise!  

You know what?
Given the human species track record and the record of our Politicians and of TPTB, it is quite likely that we will proceed with those false assumptions and it may well, cost us the Earth?

And, future generations, if there are any, will look back say, "they knew there were substantial Risks, but they didn't try to mitigate those Risks, they didn't even try"!

, I gather from your non-response, that you are not aware of any other time, "when the Earth was near Peaking its warming cycle AND there were 7 Billion+ humans on this planet"? 
Back to top    




I could be wrong but I am assuming you are saying because there are 7 billion humans on the globe.. thats why the weather is warming up??..

so in that case I think I answered you question and said yes you greens are dead right.. so when do you plan to jump off.. and let all those naysayers get on with their lives..

I mean sweating bodyheat. deadskin flakes.. dandruff farts. breathing all add to our carbon emmissions.. we wont go near the sewage ugh thingy... so lets see the less humans the better.. good of you guys to put your hands up very comendable..


theres me thinking its the nasty machines and electricity and coal we would die for,

that was the reason and its all about body odor now... got it.

why didnt woody explain that in the first place.. 7 bil never had that many people on the planet before

how many in the greens party can we count on to jump and make the place safer????????

cods wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 6:16pm:


So, you DO live with slr20mcclaren and perhaps Mellie?

There is still a window of opportunity to coax the hard right out of their denial. The return from their share portfolio.



Energy Investor Corporate Resolutions Increase on Climate Change

Climate change is bad for business—2011 marks a 50 percent hike in corporate energy investor climate change resolutions

Climate change doesn’t just have an effect on the environment; it can affect your portfolio as well. In fact, a report just released by Mercer consulting group claims that climate change could increase portfolio risk by 10 percent over the next 20 years—and this applies to nearly all businesses directly and indirectly tied to the energy sector.

More @
http://www.energydigital.com/sectors/other-energy/energy-investor-corporate-reso...


It isn't hard to realise we can not debate logically with the denialists, they refuse to believe science because this is their only weapon ; ignorance.

Yet if we educate them about the cost and risk via their portfolios and superannuation fund payouts, maybe we might get a spark in their grey matter. They could then realise calculated action is better than just ignoring and letting money vanish out of their pockets.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 5:05pm:


Gizmo. Let's illustrate the logic in that statement  by taking another example.

Colonel Mustard is lying in the kitchen. He has a dirty great knife sticking out of his chest and he has no pulse.

Your argument is very much like saying: "Unless you can prove that Colonels have never died of natural causes in the past, then you can't prove that he was stabbed. He could have just had a bad cold."

In fact - he might just have a really bad heartburn and he'll snap right out of it as soon as he's finished his scotch on the rocks.

Or if we liken the climate to a parrot (let's say a Norwegian blue) then he is not sleeping, and all the banging on its cage will not waken it up. The parrot is dead. He is not pining for the fjords.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ebarnes/python/dead-parrot.htm

Oh yeah? Well let's see the proof then....  

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 3:32pm:


No one gives a sh.t if you don't accept the evidence as being conclusive.

haven't you studied probability theory and heard of risk mitigation ??

you don't wait around until you get 100% proof of something that could be devastating to the human race before you start taking action just in case the theory is correct.

perceptions now with some cutting edge totally not-overdone humour

must have standard of proof THIS HIGH to ride the rollercoaster

JC Denton wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 1:01am:



I always thought that Al Gore belonged on the Monty Python team.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 8:08am:

 

Furthermore, it`s far from scientifically proven that Carbon is the culprit. As with all religious belief system, a great amount of blind faith is required.

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 10:31pm:




you probably havent read where scientists come back after 10 or 20 years and tell us they got it all wrong...

I am forgetting of course you are a scientists arent you??.. so you would believe everything one of the boys tells you.

50 years, Atmospheric CO2 has increased about 65 ppm

Now, has this ever happened so fast before?

If not, then human population and human behaviour is the likely cause
... correct?



440 ppm, and world agriculture is likely to collapse. Lets all follow the denialists and play russian roulette.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 11:54am:



Why do you require that considering if it doesn't work with your political view, that climate change is crap, you will deny the science.


We are on a path to 440 parts and higher. When will the denialist decide to pull their heads in ... when they are starving to death, within a short period of time?

Current Humans behaviour increases carbon pollution and the human population is exploding. Doesn't take a scientist to understand the consequences of this.

You mean massive asteroids smacking into the planet disprove human caused climate change?


Loooooong bow you are pulling there.


meanwhile back to the graph, 330 ---> 380 ppm in 50 years is enough proof that whatever the cause, it is time for calculated action.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas and humans have upset this balance in the natural environment. Reducing the carbon greenhouse gas is a logical step alongside other actions like reducing human population growth.

The time for polluters and their hard right political allies to stop this greedy short term obstruction and think of the children.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 1:19pm:



I'm looking forward to your answer woody.

Please delete wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 1:26pm:

Here and there on the net...

The Sangamon interglacial was the last 'warm period' before the last ice age (the last time the ice sheets covered the world)..we are currently in the Holocene Interglacial, which is a warm period after the last glaciation.....The Sangamon interglacial was the most recent previous time when similar conditions existed, since we are currently in an interglacial...Therefore, IF the rate of increase in Co2 (ppm/years) was markedly different 'then' to now...that would be a good indication that man IS affecting Climate Change...if it was close to the same rate (like +0.80 ppm/year), then man is NOT affecting the climate....

See, fairly simple, yes??

Oh the Eemian interglaical is the same thing as the Sangamon interglacial ..different names in different countries..

but the sangamon interglacial lasted thousands of years???!!!

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 2:29pm:


Well that's a stupid argument. But anything green argues is probably a bit stupid.

It certainly wasn't this rapid for the 15000 years of the sangamon.

The only way to answer your question would be to have the same sort of detailed records we have for the last 100 years. 50 year periods don't reflect themselves in the geologic record. Maybe ice cores, but talk abou a needle in a haystack. 

Did you notice that sea levels were 6m higher in the sangamon?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 8:08am:


Going back to the analogy it's the fact that the knife is in the chest and we know that if you are stabbed through the heart with a knife , your pulse was quite normal beforehand and no pulse after, then there is a 99%+ chance that it was the act of being stabbed through the heart that killed Colonel Mustard.

In the same way, we know that CO2 in the atmosphere causes the Greenhouse Effect (the CO2 molecule has the property of absorbing LW Infrared radiation etc). We know that the CO2 has been increasing as a result of activities such as cement manufacture and fossil fuel burning, and there is a 99% + chance that this is what is causing the increase in mean global temperatures.

Of course we know that colonels might have died from natural causes in the past, and we know that there have been perturbations of the climate in the past, but in both cases, the evidence is equally compelling.  

muso wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 3:17pm:


Ok, lets go back to your Colonel Mustard anaolgy......but delete the knife from the equation...

So we have Colonel Mustard lying dead on the floor........was it natural causes or human action????


In other words....in the current climate change...WHERE is the 'knife'???

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 6:56pm:



That was your own quote. Take responsibility rather than deflect.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 6:56pm:


You're the one that raised the sangamon interglacial, gizmo.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 6:50pm:


That wouldn't be a good analogy because copious volumes of scientific research tells us that the case is at least 99% certain.

You need to put the knife back in to make it a valid comparison.

As I already said, the "knife" is the fundamental properties of greenhouse gases to absorb LWIR and the fact that the increase in atmospheric GHG's can unequivocably be traced and quantified. Accountants are very good at keeping track of  sales and consumption of hydrocarbons and coal. It's not rocket science.  

All the dodging, lying and polemic choreography in the world can't get around those basic physical facts.  

Would anyone object of I transferred this thread to Environment? It's an environmental subject.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 20^th, 2011 at 7:40am:


Well tell me what you don't understand/ agree with  in the Climate Science thread if you like.  It's all pretty basic stuff. The question of anthropogenic global warming is settled. The paper mentioned on this thread is about the increased frequency of storm events.

We've moved on.  

Please delete wrote on Feb 20^th, 2011 at 10:51am:


Oh there are people who will provide an answer - in fact tell me what answer you want and I'm sure we can find somebody - not necessarily an authority on the subject of course.  

There are very few other subjects that have so many armchair experts.

The next time you have a medical problem, I know a very good taxi driver who is an expert on almost every subject under the sun.