Extreme rainstorms and snowfalls have grown substantially stronger

[rdean]

Global Warming Connected to Extreme Rain


The scientists took all the information that shows an increase in extreme rain and snow events from the 1950s through the 1990s and ran dozens of computer models numerous times. They put in the effects of greenhouse gases — which come from the burning of fossil fuels — and then ran numerous models without those factors. Only when the greenhouse gases are factored in do the models show a similar increase to what actually happened. All other natural effects alone don't produce the jump in extreme rainfall. Essentially, the computer runs show climate change is the only way to explain what's happening.

In fact, the computer models underestimated the increase in extreme rain and snow. That is puzzling and could be even more troubling for our future, said Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University, who wasn't part of the study.

"We should continue to expect increased flooding associated with increased extreme precipitation because of increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas. And we have no one to blame but ourselves."

----------------------------------------

Hmmm, who to believe? People who research and study using data from computers, sensors and history?

Or,

People who believe "magical creation" is "real"?

Decisions, decisions.

 

[Grace]

What do you mean by magical creation is real?

 

[westwall]

Global Warming Connected to Extreme Rain


The scientists took all the information that shows an increase in extreme rain and snow events from the 1950s through the 1990s and ran dozens of computer models numerous times. They put in the effects of greenhouse gases — which come from the burning of fossil fuels — and then ran numerous models without those factors. Only when the greenhouse gases are factored in do the models show a similar increase to what actually happened. All other natural effects alone don't produce the jump in extreme rainfall. Essentially, the computer runs show climate change is the only way to explain what's happening.

In fact, the computer models underestimated the increase in extreme rain and snow. That is puzzling and could be even more troubling for our future, said Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University, who wasn't part of the study.

"We should continue to expect increased flooding associated with increased extreme precipitation because of increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas. And we have no one to blame but ourselves."

----------------------------------------

Hmmm, who to believe? People who research and study using data from computers, sensors and history?

Or,

People who believe "magical creation" is "real"?

Decisions, decisions.

No, they havn't. Take a look at the weather in England in 1786 (three major storms in a month, buildings were washed into the sea, church steeples were blown off the roofs of their churches, slate was peeled off the roof's of thousands of buildings, the 74 gun ship of the line Bellerophon was prevented from being launched for two months because of one storm after another). Or 1823, or 1659, or any damned year you wish. Do the same for Europe, for any year you wish. The records are complete enough that you can see that the weather today is the same as it was back then.

In other words FAIL. The historical record proves this to be complete and utter rubbish.

 

[Old Rocks]

Then publish a refutation in a peer reviewed journal. When may we expect that, Walleyes?

 

[westwall]

Then publish a refutation in a peer reviewed journal. When may we expect that, Walleyes?

Uhhh, never. I don't waste my time with the obvious. Anyone with a brain can look up the stuff for themselves. It is all over the web. Besides, Pielke has allready ripped it apart.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Global Warming Connected to Extreme Rain


The scientists took all the information that shows an increase in extreme rain and snow events from the 1950s through the 1990s and ran dozens of computer models numerous times. They put in the effects of greenhouse gases — which come from the burning of fossil fuels — and then ran numerous models without those factors. Only when the greenhouse gases are factored in do the models show a similar increase to what actually happened. All other natural effects alone don't produce the jump in extreme rainfall. Essentially, the computer runs show climate change is the only way to explain what's happening.

In fact, the computer models underestimated the increase in extreme rain and snow. That is puzzling and could be even more troubling for our future, said Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University, who wasn't part of the study.

"We should continue to expect increased flooding associated with increased extreme precipitation because of increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas. And we have no one to blame but ourselves."

----------------------------------------

Hmmm, who to believe? People who research and study using data from computers, sensors and history?

Or,

People who believe "magical creation" is "real"?

Decisions, decisions.

Yes we know it's all BUOOOOOOSH and the Republicans fault

 

[BolshevikHunter]

rdean gives the phrase 'delusions of grandeur' a much deeper meaning. ~BH

 

[skookerasbil]

fAiL


Scientists Confirm No Increase in Extreme Weather

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Wall Street Journal has published an interesting article this morning regarding extreme weather. The Journal notes that a group of scientists with the Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project has analyzed extreme weather since 1871 and found no increase in extreme weather.

"In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years," University of Colorado atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the project’s researchers, told the Journal. "So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871."

Summarizing the state of atmospheric science and climate change quite well, the Journal explained, “We do know that carbon dioxide and other gases trap and re-radiate heat. We also know that humans have emitted ever-more of these gases since the Industrial Revolution. What we don't know is exactly how sensitive the climate is to increases in these gases versus other possible factors—solar variability, oceanic currents, Pacific heating and cooling cycles, planets' gravitational and magnetic oscillations, and so on.”

The article can be read in full at The Weather Isn't Getting Weirder - WSJ.com.

 

[skookerasbil]

Yet another kick in the balls for the k00ks.............

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Global Warming Connected to Extreme Rain


The scientists took all the information that shows an increase in extreme rain and snow events from the 1950s through the 1990s and ran dozens of computer models numerous times. They put in the effects of greenhouse gases — which come from the burning of fossil fuels — and then ran numerous models without those factors. Only when the greenhouse gases are factored in do the models show a similar increase to what actually happened. All other natural effects alone don't produce the jump in extreme rainfall. Essentially, the computer runs show climate change is the only way to explain what's happening.

In fact, the computer models underestimated the increase in extreme rain and snow. That is puzzling and could be even more troubling for our future, said Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University, who wasn't part of the study.

"We should continue to expect increased flooding associated with increased extreme precipitation because of increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas. And we have no one to blame but ourselves."

----------------------------------------

Hmmm, who to believe? People who research and study using data from computers, sensors and history?

Or,

People who believe "magical creation" is "real"?

Decisions, decisions.

Let me see if I understand you.

You take a 48 year period, ignore any data points outside of that period, and declare that the only possible explanation for the data is that man caused it.

I love this quote form the article.

The change in severity was most apparent in North America, but that could be because that's where the most rain gauges are, scientists said.

Did you know the reason that most climatologist decided to stop paying attention to data form before the 1950s is that it tended to contradict their theories and not fit their models? Especially in the US where, it is assumed, the temperature and rainfall readings are more accurate.

The really interesting thing is that the models they are using for this study still fail to predict actual, real world, conditions.

In fact, the computer models underestimated the increase in extreme rain and snow. That is puzzling and could be even more troubling for our future, said Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University, who wasn't part of the study.

What puzzles me is why they keep clinging to models that are so obviously wrong.

Is the world getting warmer? Yes.

Is the primary cause of that the greenhouse gasses we, as a civilization, require to survive? Almost definitely.

Will there be potential negative effects from this process? Yes.

Are there potential positive effects? Yes.

Do the positive affects outweigh the negative affects. Almost definitely.

Should I worry about a looming disaster that will wipe out all life on Earth? No.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Dummy starts another full of crap thread and then disappears once again to the bath house. ~BH

 

[GHook93]

...human scarifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hyseria!!!

 

[rdean]

fAiL


Scientists Confirm No Increase in Extreme Weather

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Wall Street Journal has published an interesting article this morning regarding extreme weather. The Journal notes that a group of scientists with the Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project has analyzed extreme weather since 1871 and found no increase in extreme weather.

"In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years," University of Colorado atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the project’s researchers, told the Journal. "So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871."

Summarizing the state of atmospheric science and climate change quite well, the Journal explained, “We do know that carbon dioxide and other gases trap and re-radiate heat. We also know that humans have emitted ever-more of these gases since the Industrial Revolution. What we don't know is exactly how sensitive the climate is to increases in these gases versus other possible factors—solar variability, oceanic currents, Pacific heating and cooling cycles, planets' gravitational and magnetic oscillations, and so on.”

The article can be read in full at The Weather Isn't Getting Weirder - WSJ.com.

Not really. You may want to read a little more about that organization and their findings:

Old Weather is Shedding New Light on Climate : News : Climate Central

Overland believes that in the future, if temperatures in the Arctic continue to warm as rapidly as they have in recent decades, there could be a noticeable influence on the NAO, but he says that most current observations indicate natural variation is still the major driver.

----------------

You see? Their data doesn't really correlate the increased temperature trends from the last few decades. More interesting was this warning:

----------------

Fasullo says that the reanalysis method of sampling and “filling in the blanks” with models comes with a lot of errors. His concern is that some won’t realize that the recreated maps always contain some amount of information that was not observed, but was recreated by a model of the climate.

Fasullo says another limitation is that the NOAA/CIRES reanalysis depends primarily on atmospheric pressure observations, which aren’t always well correlated to rain, clouds and wind speeds.

“The project is a good stepping stone, but we’ll never get the full reanalysis,” he says.

------------------

This is the problem with Republicans and science. They only look at what they "imagine" will support their ideology.

It's like saying, "There must have been an Adam and Eve because we are all related" or "There must have been a flood because that's what created the Grand Canyon" or "There must have been a big bang because God said, "Let there be light"."

They just pick and choose what they want to believe.

 

[rdean]

What do you mean by magical creation is real?

You know. Gawd created man from dirt. And men have 1 fewer ribs than women. I don't know how many times I've heard that nonsense repeated.

The foundation science for biology, botany and physiology is evolution. People who don't believe in those sciences should stay away from doctors. Other than Ron Paul, I have never heard another doctor who says they don't believe in the "science" of evolution.

 

[Leweman]

There will be climate change. Earths history is filled with it. People should focus on technology to adapt to it and less time trying to blame man for it.

 

[Old Rocks]

What a major investment advising service states.
Trillions of dollars at stake from climate change

The cost of impacts on the physical environment, health and food security could exceed $4 trillion.

Thank you, Walleyes, please post more sites like this for me.