MOTR wrote on Aug 5^th, 2012 at 10:44pm:

Except, even your beloved IPCC says 'Climate models are unable to predict extreme events because they lack spatial and temporal resolution. In addition, there is no clear evidence that sustained or worldwide changes in extreme events have occurred in the past few decades'

But of course then go on to say the same ol BS

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/regional/index.php?idp=232

There is no link to extreme weather event ans CO2. Do you have the data that says extreme weather events are more common now, are greater in intensity now or do you just have lives lost and cost and trying to use that as a "more = worse"?

^ I see you still think you're on top of everything.

Watch out for the next report.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20111110_NewClimateDice.pdf

"Our analysis shows that it is no longer enough to say that global warming will increase the likelihood of extreme weather and to repeat the caveat that no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change. To the contrary, our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change."

The study, which was published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, looks at the past six decades of global temperatures and finds what Hansen described as a "stunning" rise in the frequency of extremely hot summers.
It compared what is happening now to what was happening between 1951-1980. In those years, extremely hot temperatures covered less than 0.2% of the planet. Now, those temperatures cover about 10% of the land area, the study said.

It dismissed the idea that specific weather patterns are by themselves sufficient to explain today's extreme anomalies. Phenomena like La Nina have always been around, but large areas of extreme warming have only come about with climate change, the study said.

"The odds that natural variability created these extremes are minuscule, vanishingly small. To count on those odds would be like quitting your job and playing the lottery every morning to pay the bills," wrote Hansen.

Hansen directs research at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

It comes from a peer reviewed paper, progs. Just because their conclusions dont fit with your smug view of the world doesn't mean the rest of us are going to ignore them.

Are you talking about the US dust bowl drought of the 1930s, an environmental disaster that was as much about poor land use practices as the meteorological conditions that precipitated it.

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 6:45am:


Going back to the 1930s wouldn't make any difference to a global study such as this. How about you read the paper first, progs.

It's about rare weather events becoming more common. Pointing to similar events in the past does not counter this argument. We all know these things happened, but why are they happening more frequently today.

Are these events actually more common?
They are certainly much better covered by the now global media where in the past it would get little coverage if at all or even ever known about.
Example we would have probably never heard of the 1976 Tangshan Earthquake that initially reportedly killed 1 million and later revised down to about 250,000, had our then former PM not been there in China at the time judging from the coverage at the time.

MOTR wrote on Aug 6^th, 2012 at 7:43pm:

Where is the data to that scientific method. Hansoms head.