Extreme weather events that show AGW

[Billy_Bob]

Billy_bob writes,

"Its rather interesting that our alarmists counterparts would use the deception of "storms are getting worse" when it can so easily be debunked by looking at the last 200 years of history. Simply because the majority of people haven't seen this kind of weather in their life times they are easily lead astray from the real boundaries of natural variation. We've been in a low ACE (accumulated Cyclonic Energy) value due to solar low for about 20 years now. People are easily duped when they don't know about the level and energy of storms of the past."

The records at the NOAA shows no increase in violent Tornadoes. Weather Underground show that there is no increase in Tropical Storm ACE. UAH satellite, shows half the predicted warming rate. The Arctic Summer ice extent of last 20 years (even at the low point) are above average for the Interglacial period.

Increase in snowfall totals and extent in the last decade, the IPCC says it would be less.

On and on I can go......................................

BINGO!

No Increase! Even the pattern changes of atmospheric flow due to La Niña and El Niño patterns, show normal variances in distribution and strength of storms. Its all there, but they choose to ignore it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I have a degree in Chemical Engineering kiddo, so I think my scientific bonafides outweigh yours.

That has soooo much to do with climate science.

Climate science is the one "Science" without a single repeatable experiment.

Actually that turns out to be the other way around..

Here’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers | Dana Nuccitelli

Can you post the lab experiments showing how an instantaneous 120PPM of CO2 will cause temperature to rise?

Thank you

Here, let me Google that for you.

Odd, you didn't link to the lab work

 

[jillian]

Billy_bob writes,

"Its rather interesting that our alarmists counterparts would use the deception of "storms are getting worse" when it can so easily be debunked by looking at the last 200 years of history. Simply because the majority of people haven't seen this kind of weather in their life times they are easily lead astray from the real boundaries of natural variation. We've been in a low ACE (accumulated Cyclonic Energy) value due to solar low for about 20 years now. People are easily duped when they don't know about the level and energy of storms of the past."

The records at the NOAA shows no increase in violent Tornadoes. Weather Underground show that there is no increase in Tropical Storm ACE. UAH satellite, shows half the predicted warming rate. The Arctic Summer ice extent of last 20 years (even at the low point) are above average for the Interglacial period.

Increase in snowfall totals and extent in the last decade, the IPCC says it would be less.

On and on I can go......................................

BINGO!

No Increase! Even the pattern changes of atmospheric flow due to La Niña and El Niño patterns, show normal variances in distribution and strength of storms. Its all there, but they choose to ignore it.

yes, we should listen to your nonsense and not actual climate scientists.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Now dumb fucks, these are real scientists, not the obese junkies on the AM radio that you worship.

Education and degrees do not confer the assumption of correctness.

When all the educated, degreed people agree on a conclusion it does.

So Newton was right back then, everyone agreed with him, and so Relativity is wrong?

You make the false assumption that our current level of understanding of things is the correct one.

You also forget that large masses of people are just as capable of making the same mistake as a single person is.

Finally, when actual debate on the topic is stifled you can silence contrary opinions (even slightly diverging ones) via peer pressure.

Newton was not wrong, Newton was incomplete. He was absolutely correct as far as his model went.

Really? Then why are they not at the AGU conference? Or at the AMS conference? And these people make explicit reference to the historical record. You sit there, covered in the slime of the worst of scientific ignorance, and spout how you know so much more than these scientists.

Old Rocks, try following the evidence instead.

Tropical Storm Ace no increase, from Weather Underground
"10 Things We Know About Accumulated Cyclone Energy
1. There is no evidence of a systematic increasing or decreasing trend in ACE for the years 1970-2012. "

No increase in Tornadoes either, from the NOAA

"The bar charts below indicate there has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years."

Arctic ice no trend over the last 11 full years, from MASIE

View attachment 186570
I have more to show......

The chart clearly shows the influence of man made global warming on our climate. Surrender to the One World Government -- or you will kill all of mankind

 

[Sunsettommy]

Billy_bob writes,

"Its rather interesting that our alarmists counterparts would use the deception of "storms are getting worse" when it can so easily be debunked by looking at the last 200 years of history. Simply because the majority of people haven't seen this kind of weather in their life times they are easily lead astray from the real boundaries of natural variation. We've been in a low ACE (accumulated Cyclonic Energy) value due to solar low for about 20 years now. People are easily duped when they don't know about the level and energy of storms of the past."

The records at the NOAA shows no increase in violent Tornadoes. Weather Underground show that there is no increase in Tropical Storm ACE. UAH satellite, shows half the predicted warming rate. The Arctic Summer ice extent of last 20 years (even at the low point) are above average for the Interglacial period.

Increase in snowfall totals and extent in the last decade, the IPCC says it would be less.

On and on I can go......................................

BINGO!

No Increase! Even the pattern changes of atmospheric flow due to La Niña and El Niño patterns, show normal variances in distribution and strength of storms. Its all there, but they choose to ignore it.

yes, we should listen to your nonsense and not actual climate scientists.

I notice you showed no interest on the possibility that the NOAA,Weather Underground, Satellite data and MASIE might support my statements. That these official sources are real, that you can see them for yourself without pain, instead of being an ignorant person who is falling back on the authority, consensus fallacies instead.

It is clear you have nothing to contribute here.

Off you go to the sandbox.

 

[Crepitus]

I already expect conservatives do disagree with anything that contains actual science anyway.

I have a degree in Chemical Engineering kiddo, so I think my scientific bonafides outweigh yours.

That has soooo much to do with climate science.

What's your degree or background in?

It means I have taken courses in basic science, Chemistry, Physics, thermodynamics, as well as courses in applied science, mass transfer, reactions, energy transfer.

All relate to the concepts seen in climate modelling. I have even done wastewater modelling, and thus know the limits of models of even simpler systems such as Activated Sludge treatment processes, nevermind orders of magnitude more complex systems like the atmosphere.

You are not going to get any denials or acceptances of man's impact on macro-climate from me, I am ambivalent on the topic. My issue is that the hucksters who push this crap have one solution only, more government, less freedom.

As an Engineer I know we can adjust to the changes being made via technology.

Biz Admin with a double minor of accounting and music. Almost as applicable to climate science as yours.

Not a chance. Hard sciences beat your soft socialism hands down. I'll go with people who are hard science people over the soft ones like you.

As a practicing meteorologist with a Masters in applied Atmospheric Physics I can see why you got duped by the nutter.

I'll wait for you to show us your hard science that proves man is the only cause and how the earths systems will go out of balance and death spiral into boiling off the earths atmosphere. Paleo records show CO2 well above 7000ppm and no runaway earth...

Now show us your replicatable science and methods to prove your assertions.

Straw man alert! No one said man is the only cause.

 

[miketx]

More liberal sickness. Keep it up, never stop lying about something you know absolutely nothing about.

What was the temperature of the north pole 436 years ago?

 

[SSDD]

Really? Then why are they not at the AGU conference? Or at the AMS conference? And these people make explicit reference to the historical record. You sit there, covered in the slime of the worst of scientific ignorance, and spout how you know so much more than these scientists.

Because opposing voices, and opposing research isn't tolerated. That is the hallmark of that scam, and why it isn't true science.

Every major scientific institution in the world agrees that the globe is warming and that Man is the cause. There is no real dissenting research, only a few paid industry shills.

Can you provide a single piece of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...NO..you can not. That being said, upon what, exactly do you suppose this agreement that man is causing climate change is based? If it isn't observed, measured data, then the only other thing that I can think of that would bring a bunch of natural skeptics together in agreement is money...and lots of it.

 

[skookerasbil]

More liberal sickness. Keep it up, never stop lying about something you know absolutely nothing about.

What was the temperature of the north pole 436 years ago?

Indeed the red baby diaper doper babies don't seem to realize that a shift in the polar axis has caused the cold to move south.... which is why in Central and Eastern Canada and the Northeastern United States we've been freezing our balls off for several years now. Duh......

 

[skookerasbil]

By the way.... saying the cold moving south is due to climate change is even more stupid then saying the Japanese tsunami from a few years ago was caused by climate change. But then again you can't put anything past these red baby diaper dopers.

 

[Crepitus]

Really? Then why are they not at the AGU conference? Or at the AMS conference? And these people make explicit reference to the historical record. You sit there, covered in the slime of the worst of scientific ignorance, and spout how you know so much more than these scientists.

Because opposing voices, and opposing research isn't tolerated. That is the hallmark of that scam, and why it isn't true science.

Every major scientific institution in the world agrees that the globe is warming and that Man is the cause. There is no real dissenting research, only a few paid industry shills.

Can you provide a single piece of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...NO..you can not. That being said, upon what, exactly do you suppose this agreement that man is causing climate change is based? If it isn't observed, measured data, then the only other thing that I can think of that would bring a bunch of natural skeptics together in agreement is money...and lots of it.

Lol, co2 makes the world warmer than it would be without it. Man is adding huge amounts of co2 and other green house gasses to the atmosphere. Poof! Global warming!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Really? Then why are they not at the AGU conference? Or at the AMS conference? And these people make explicit reference to the historical record. You sit there, covered in the slime of the worst of scientific ignorance, and spout how you know so much more than these scientists.

Because opposing voices, and opposing research isn't tolerated. That is the hallmark of that scam, and why it isn't true science.

Every major scientific institution in the world agrees that the globe is warming and that Man is the cause. There is no real dissenting research, only a few paid industry shills.

Can you provide a single piece of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...NO..you can not. That being said, upon what, exactly do you suppose this agreement that man is causing climate change is based? If it isn't observed, measured data, then the only other thing that I can think of that would bring a bunch of natural skeptics together in agreement is money...and lots of it.

Lol, co2 makes the world warmer than it would be without it. Man is adding huge amounts of co2 and other green house gasses to the atmosphere. Poof! Global warming!

Oh really?

Here is the LOG of CO2. 95% of what CO2 can do is already spent. At most you might see 1.1 deg C per doubling IF there is not a negative forcing. As it stands today, only 0.2 Deg C can be attributed to CO2 rise of 122ppm. Only about 1/4 of what the LOG says should happen with CO2 ALONE!

Epic Fail... You want to try again?

122ppm above 280ppm is 1/2 of one doubling since 1800.

There is no mid-tropospheric hot spot.

Where is your magical heat at?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Really? Then why are they not at the AGU conference? Or at the AMS conference? And these people make explicit reference to the historical record. You sit there, covered in the slime of the worst of scientific ignorance, and spout how you know so much more than these scientists.

Because opposing voices, and opposing research isn't tolerated. That is the hallmark of that scam, and why it isn't true science.

Every major scientific institution in the world agrees that the globe is warming and that Man is the cause. There is no real dissenting research, only a few paid industry shills.

Can you provide a single piece of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...NO..you can not. That being said, upon what, exactly do you suppose this agreement that man is causing climate change is based? If it isn't observed, measured data, then the only other thing that I can think of that would bring a bunch of natural skeptics together in agreement is money...and lots of it.

Lol, co2 makes the world warmer than it would be without it. Man is adding huge amounts of co2 and other green house gasses to the atmosphere. Poof! Global warming!

Oh really?

View attachment 186633

Here is the LOG of CO2. 95% of what CO2 can do is already spent. At most you might see 1.1 deg C per doubling IF there is not a negative forcing. As it stands today, only 0.2 Deg C can be attributed to CO2 rise of 122ppm. Only about 1/4 of what the LOG says should happen with CO2 ALONE!

Epic Fail... You want to try again?

122ppm above 280ppm is 1/2 of one doubling since 1800.

There is no mid-tropospheric hot spot.

Where is your magical heat at?

Notice that SSDD request was never answered.

"Can you provide a single piece of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...NO..you can not. That being said, upon what, exactly do you suppose this agreement that man is causing climate change is based? "

Gee I wonder why......?

 

[skookerasbil]

Really? Then why are they not at the AGU conference? Or at the AMS conference? And these people make explicit reference to the historical record. You sit there, covered in the slime of the worst of scientific ignorance, and spout how you know so much more than these scientists.

Because opposing voices, and opposing research isn't tolerated. That is the hallmark of that scam, and why it isn't true science.

Every major scientific institution in the world agrees that the globe is warming and that Man is the cause. There is no real dissenting research, only a few paid industry shills.

Can you provide a single piece of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...NO..you can not. That being said, upon what, exactly do you suppose this agreement that man is causing climate change is based? If it isn't observed, measured data, then the only other thing that I can think of that would bring a bunch of natural skeptics together in agreement is money...and lots of it.

Lol, co2 makes the world warmer than it would be without it. Man is adding huge amounts of co2 and other green house gasses to the atmosphere. Poof! Global warming!

But no one is caring s0n!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Because opposing voices, and opposing research isn't tolerated. That is the hallmark of that scam, and why it isn't true science.

Every major scientific institution in the world agrees that the globe is warming and that Man is the cause. There is no real dissenting research, only a few paid industry shills.

Can you provide a single piece of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...NO..you can not. That being said, upon what, exactly do you suppose this agreement that man is causing climate change is based? If it isn't observed, measured data, then the only other thing that I can think of that would bring a bunch of natural skeptics together in agreement is money...and lots of it.

Lol, co2 makes the world warmer than it would be without it. Man is adding huge amounts of co2 and other green house gasses to the atmosphere. Poof! Global warming!

Oh really?

View attachment 186633

Here is the LOG of CO2. 95% of what CO2 can do is already spent. At most you might see 1.1 deg C per doubling IF there is not a negative forcing. As it stands today, only 0.2 Deg C can be attributed to CO2 rise of 122ppm. Only about 1/4 of what the LOG says should happen with CO2 ALONE!

Epic Fail... You want to try again?

122ppm above 280ppm is 1/2 of one doubling since 1800.

There is no mid-tropospheric hot spot.

Where is your magical heat at?

Notice that SSDD request was never answered.

"Can you provide a single piece of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...NO..you can not. That being said, upon what, exactly do you suppose this agreement that man is causing climate change is based? "

Gee I wonder why......?

Because they can not. No empirical evidence exists which proves their position and they refuse to state that. His position is easily shown failed and based on failed science modeling.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Now dumb fucks, these are real scientists, not the obese junkies on the AM radio that you worship.

Education and degrees do not confer the assumption of correctness.

When all the educated, degreed people agree on a conclusion it does.

When all the educated, degreed people agree on a conclusion it does.

It wasn't all of them, it was 75 out of 77.

 

[skookerasbil]

Now dumb fucks, these are real scientists, not the obese junkies on the AM radio that you worship.

Education and degrees do not confer the assumption of correctness.

When all the educated, degreed people agree on a conclusion it does.

When all the educated, degreed people agree on a conclusion it does.

It wasn't all of them, it was 75 out of 77.

Laughable.... and these mental cases call that a consensus . My God what a bunch of suckers....

 

[sparky]

The Trump administration , active in public downgrades of climate change, is actually increasing funds for the aftermath of it

In essence, advocating anthropogenics , because it's costing us bizillions

So the very same deniers continuing their public 'nail-in-head' narrative , are paying for the cleanups to come, vs. the corporate entities who are the real culprits

And you thought fake news was all CNN......~S~

 

[Sunsettommy]

The Trump administration , active in public downgrades of climate change, is actually increasing funds for the aftermath of it

In essence, advocating anthropogenics , because it's costing us bizillions

So the very same deniers continuing their public 'nail-in-head' narrative , are paying for the cleanups to come, vs. the corporate entities who are the real culprits

And you thought fake news was all CNN......~S~

The article is misleading since the money earmarked has nothing to do with bad weather events which are NOT increasing along the coastlines.

Don't continue with your bogus argument over it.

 

[sparky]

The Trump administration , active in public downgrades of climate change, is actually increasing funds for the aftermath of it

In essence, advocating anthropogenics , because it's costing us bizillions

So the very same deniers continuing their public 'nail-in-head' narrative , are paying for the cleanups to come, vs. the corporate entities who are the real culprits

And you thought fake news was all CNN......~S~

The article is misleading since the money earmarked has nothing to do with bad weather events which are NOT increasing along the coastlines.

Don't continue with your bogus argument over it.

another 'fake news' advocate then.....

~S~