Sorry Boys but NOAA says Russian heat wave NOT GW induced.

That is not what was said at all. What was said was that this was a very unussual event, one that was unprecedented. There is no definate way to state that the blocking was due to the warming, however, with all the other precipitation events that we are now seeing worldwide, it fit the pattern of "wider and wilder weather swings, with an overall warming'. It was unuassaly cold in this area last winter, but the summer was even hotter than average. So the overall average for the year, so far, is warmer.

2010 Russian Heat Wave

This current condition in global mean surface temperature is thus consistent with prior conclusions of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level". The IPCC Synthesis Report goes on to state that "most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th Century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".

A comprehensive analysis of observed changes in extreme daily temperatures for the period 1901-2003 also reveals symptoms of a warming planet with a majority of stations over western Russia and eastern Europe (and also over Canada) showing significant increasing trends of warm daytime and warm nighttime temperatures.

Despite this strong evidence for a warming planet, greenhouse gas forcing fails to explain the 2010 heat wave over western Russia. The natural process of atmospheric blocking, and the climate impacts induced by such blocking, are the principal cause for this heat wave. It is not known whether, or to what exent, greenhouse gas emissions may affect the frequency or intensity of blocking during summer. It is important to note that observations reveal no trend in a daily frequency of July blocking over the period since 1948, nor is there an appreciable trend in the absolute values of upper tropospheric summertime heights over western Russia for the period since 1900.
 
Last edited:
From the beginning of the paragraph you quoted from..........

Despite this strong evidence for a warming planet, greenhouse gas forcing fails to explain the 2010 heat wave over western Russia.
 
From the beginning of the paragraph you quoted from..........

Despite this strong evidence for a warming planet, greenhouse gas forcing fails to explain the 2010 heat wave over western Russia.

Well yes, the warming is hardly responsible, solely by itself, for a 25 F increase in heat over a huge area of Russia and Eastern Europe. After all, the average increase is not yet 1 C. However, a changing weather pattern because of that increase cannot be ruled out. And considering the other weather events worldwide this year, it surely does fit a pattern of unusual events worldwide.
 
From the beginning of the paragraph you quoted from..........

Despite this strong evidence for a warming planet, greenhouse gas forcing fails to explain the 2010 heat wave over western Russia.

Well yes, the warming is hardly responsible, solely by itself, for a 25 F increase in heat over a huge area of Russia and Eastern Europe. After all, the average increase is not yet 1 C. However, a changing weather pattern because of that increase cannot be ruled out. And considering the other weather events worldwide this year, it surely does fit a pattern of unusual events worldwide.
And your obvious answer to the report?

"Nuh-UH!!" :lol:
 
From the beginning of the paragraph you quoted from..........

Despite this strong evidence for a warming planet, greenhouse gas forcing fails to explain the 2010 heat wave over western Russia.

I agree with the OP. NOAA isn't exactly biased, per say, but they are certainly not going to go out on a limb (and risk being called the slanderous and derogatory comment of 'warming skeptic') to say that without substantial corroborating evidence.
 
From the beginning of the paragraph you quoted from..........

Despite this strong evidence for a warming planet, greenhouse gas forcing fails to explain the 2010 heat wave over western Russia.

Well yes, the warming is hardly responsible, solely by itself, for a 25 F increase in heat over a huge area of Russia and Eastern Europe. After all, the average increase is not yet 1 C. However, a changing weather pattern because of that increase cannot be ruled out. And considering the other weather events worldwide this year, it surely does fit a pattern of unusual events worldwide.

You can't base climate change on a single year, decade or even century. You can't base it on CO2 changes either, but I know you so enjoy it.
 
From the beginning of the paragraph you quoted from..........

Despite this strong evidence for a warming planet, greenhouse gas forcing fails to explain the 2010 heat wave over western Russia.

Well yes, the warming is hardly responsible, solely by itself, for a 25 F increase in heat over a huge area of Russia and Eastern Europe. After all, the average increase is not yet 1 C. However, a changing weather pattern because of that increase cannot be ruled out. And considering the other weather events worldwide this year, it surely does fit a pattern of unusual events worldwide.

You can't base climate change on a single year, decade or even century. You can't base it on CO2 changes either, but I know you so enjoy it.

Why can't you base it on CO2 changes? How about explaining your reasoning? We know absorbs infra-red radiation, so how can more CO2 not lead to additional trapping of heat?!?! Sounds more like wishful thinking than anything having to do with science.
 
Well yes, the warming is hardly responsible, solely by itself, for a 25 F increase in heat over a huge area of Russia and Eastern Europe. After all, the average increase is not yet 1 C. However, a changing weather pattern because of that increase cannot be ruled out. And considering the other weather events worldwide this year, it surely does fit a pattern of unusual events worldwide.

You can't base climate change on a single year, decade or even century. You can't base it on CO2 changes either, but I know you so enjoy it.

Why can't you base it on CO2 changes? How about explaining your reasoning? We know absorbs infra-red radiation, so how can more CO2 not lead to additional trapping of heat?!?! Sounds more like wishful thinking than anything having to do with science.

I painted my front porch late last summer. Didn't have Robins build a nest and successfully raise babies until this year. Now they did it twice in one season. So....should I conclude painting leads to successful Robin raising? I got evidence. My wife can confirm it happened that way. I can go out and paint porches up and down the street to see if anyone gets birds next year. Then I can manipulate the data I get to reconfirm.
 
You can't base climate change on a single year, decade or even century. You can't base it on CO2 changes either, but I know you so enjoy it.

Why can't you base it on CO2 changes? How about explaining your reasoning? We know absorbs infra-red radiation, so how can more CO2 not lead to additional trapping of heat?!?! Sounds more like wishful thinking than anything having to do with science.

I painted my front porch late last summer. Didn't have Robins build a nest and successfully raise babies until this year. Now they did it twice in one season. So....should I conclude painting leads to successful Robin raising? I got evidence. My wife can confirm it happened that way. I can go out and paint porches up and down the street to see if anyone gets birds next year. Then I can manipulate the data I get to reconfirm.
I have peer-reviewed this post, and I concur. The science is settled: Painting leads to successful robin raising.
 
You can't base climate change on a single year, decade or even century. You can't base it on CO2 changes either, but I know you so enjoy it.

Why can't you base it on CO2 changes? How about explaining your reasoning? We know absorbs infra-red radiation, so how can more CO2 not lead to additional trapping of heat?!?! Sounds more like wishful thinking than anything having to do with science.

I painted my front porch late last summer. Didn't have Robins build a nest and successfully raise babies until this year. Now they did it twice in one season. So....should I conclude painting leads to successful Robin raising? I got evidence. My wife can confirm it happened that way. I can go out and paint porches up and down the street to see if anyone gets birds next year. Then I can manipulate the data I get to reconfirm.

The difference is that, unlike your experiment, I can prove that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation in the lab. It's trivial, really. Sorry, but your analogy would not stand up in a real-life scientific situation. It's one of those "arguments" that only impresses the scientifically unsophisticated.
 
Why can't you base it on CO2 changes? How about explaining your reasoning? We know absorbs infra-red radiation, so how can more CO2 not lead to additional trapping of heat?!?! Sounds more like wishful thinking than anything having to do with science.

I painted my front porch late last summer. Didn't have Robins build a nest and successfully raise babies until this year. Now they did it twice in one season. So....should I conclude painting leads to successful Robin raising? I got evidence. My wife can confirm it happened that way. I can go out and paint porches up and down the street to see if anyone gets birds next year. Then I can manipulate the data I get to reconfirm.
I have peer-reviewed this post, and I concur. The science is settled: Painting leads to successful robin raising.

Who's laughing at who??? You, for certain, if you tried flying that trash in a real scientific situation. :cool:
 
I painted my front porch late last summer. Didn't have Robins build a nest and successfully raise babies until this year. Now they did it twice in one season. So....should I conclude painting leads to successful Robin raising? I got evidence. My wife can confirm it happened that way. I can go out and paint porches up and down the street to see if anyone gets birds next year. Then I can manipulate the data I get to reconfirm.
I have peer-reviewed this post, and I concur. The science is settled: Painting leads to successful robin raising.

Who's laughing at who??? You, for certain, if you tried flying that trash in a real scientific situation. :cool:

Global warming isn't real, so no worries there. Real science. :lol:
 
Russian CO2 is far more sensitive than we've been lead to believe.

Too bad Obama is abandoning this whole "Glacier Eating CO2 Spaghetti Monster" nonsense
 
I painted my front porch late last summer. Didn't have Robins build a nest and successfully raise babies until this year. Now they did it twice in one season. So....should I conclude painting leads to successful Robin raising? I got evidence. My wife can confirm it happened that way. I can go out and paint porches up and down the street to see if anyone gets birds next year. Then I can manipulate the data I get to reconfirm.
I have peer-reviewed this post, and I concur. The science is settled: Painting leads to successful robin raising.

Who's laughing at who??? You, for certain, if you tried flying that trash in a real scientific situation. :cool:
Sorry. I forgot AGW held the franchise on circle-jerk peer review.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top