BAMS State of the Climate - 2012

[ScienceRocks]

Weather--->Tornadoes, hurricanes and extratropical cyclones.
Climate--->Avg temperature or means placement of jet stream(can also mean placement of those weather patterns).

A more ice free arctic caused by a warming climate can shift the jet stream and cause a different weather pattern then occurred 200 years ago.

Most of this years inactivity in tornadoes were caused by the jet stream being further eastward. This didn't allow moisture from the gulf to spawn the twisters.

I'm NOT saying this is climate...Just interesting how it played out this year. On the other hand the longer term pattern of WEATHER can be charged to differ by the change in climate.

Do you agree?

 

[gslack]

Weather--->Tornadoes, hurricanes and extratropical cyclones.
Climate--->Avg temperature or means placement of jet stream(can also mean placement of those weather patterns).

A more ice free arctic caused by a warming climate can shift the jet stream and cause a different weather pattern then occurred 200 years ago.

Most of this years inactivity in tornadoes were caused by the jet stream being further eastward. This didn't allow moisture from the gulf to spawn the twisters.

I'm NOT saying this is climate...Just interesting how it played out this year. On the other hand the longer term pattern of WEATHER can be charged to differ by the change in climate.

Do you agree?

Matt, I appreciate the way you have been lately.. Pretty even, you still beleive differently than me, but you aren't a loon about it...

And I agree with much of what you just said.. However, socks and others are far more ready to call weather climate to suit their needs than most non-agw posters here.

Personally I think the last years weather only shows how little we really understand about the system we live in... Neither evidence of warming, cooling, or wierding, just weather we can't account for that defies the predictions... I don't call it evidence for my side of it, and I certainly don't call it for the other side.. it's just evidence we know squat in the greater scheme...

 

[flacaltenn]

Weather--->Tornadoes, hurricanes and extratropical cyclones.
Climate--->Avg temperature or means placement of jet stream(can also mean placement of those weather patterns).

A more ice free arctic caused by a warming climate can shift the jet stream and cause a different weather pattern then occurred 200 years ago.

Most of this years inactivity in tornadoes were caused by the jet stream being further eastward. This didn't allow moisture from the gulf to spawn the twisters.

I'm NOT saying this is climate...Just interesting how it played out this year. On the other hand the longer term pattern of WEATHER can be charged to differ by the change in climate.

Do you agree?

Almost.. Certainly to make the climate change argument -- you have to show evidence of increase strength and likelihood of violent weather. That's my bottom line. So -- what does 1deg mean to a cumulo-nimbus? Tornadoes require at LEAST 5 neccessary conditions that either of us could reel off --- there are probably more. I don't think that 1 deg of temperature creates tornadoes more often. The most likely formation of tornadoes doesn't come from organized weather fronts, but from isolated super cells. These are pretty independent of "average surface temp" in their formation because they require a temp. DIFFERENCE more than just a degree surface boost.

((I can however see increased activity of organized weather fronts because they feed on a wide area of humidity and surface warmth.))

Pretty similiar line of reasoning for hurricane strength and formation.. If that 1deg surface boost had an effect --- we would see it during AMO, PDO periods. Although there is SOME relationship to those natural temp. cycles, it's really NOT definitive.

If the relationship is NOT predictive for AMO and PDO --- what makes anyone think that a 0.5degC boost in sea surface temp. is a SUFFICIENT condition to make claims about violence increasing?

I don't do ice.. Pure and simple. And I know that's heartless. But glaciers were doomed 200 yrs ago.. And I'm not amazed that when temps get above freezing in the summer, all of sudden the ice starts to melt. It's a threshold being breached, not a warning from the gods.

Just can't get all jazzed about ice like I could about all the OTHER purported castastrophic weather changes that have been proposed..

The implication given for Climate Change is that temp is a SUFFICIENT condition for all these imagined changes. SURELY the energy in the system increases. But so does dam near every variable. Right now --- increased winds from N. Africa are snuffing out Atl. hurricanes like a 5 yr old birthday boy. And belching clouds of dry particulates all the way to the Caribbean..

It's a lot more complicated than the poly sci / media driven / politically correct vision....

 

[flacaltenn]

PMZ --- Now that you've pissed off damn near EVERYBODY in this forum -- are ya still enjoying yourself?

We're gonna have to come up with a name for your brand of climate theory since you insist on being an "army of one".. Or you can just remain our special little Global Nihilist..

 

[Old Rocks]

I don't care if Williard Scott, Al Roker AND Stephanie Abrahms is on that list.. I'm concerned with WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAYS.. And for some reason --- you can't tell me how statements like I posted of NO FREAKING evidence of hurricane/cyclone influence is backing your extreme CC charlatanism..

GO FETCH SOMETHING that YOU think is important out of it that isn't simply more melting ice... Something that justifies your whining about "cooler springs, earlier summers" in Finland or whereever..

I did not see a blazing iconic bush in that report that validates your psychic premonitions about Climate destruction everytime the weather changes..

I have only fast read 36 pages. But have seen all kinds of information on atmospheric water vapor, permafrost temperatures, stratospheric temperatures, tropospheric temperatures, and many, many other factors in the climate.

No, you do not care how many scientists are offering supporting evidence, what the evidence is, or how it was gathered. You have your mind made up, and no amount of reality is going to change it. You are willfully ignorant, and proud of it. No differant than the rednecks I used to see on the greenchain in the sawmills. No one could convince them that they needed to up their educational level, that their job was going to be taken over by a machine. Now they are bitter old men, not having had a job, or decent paying job, in a couple of decades. And they blame everybody but themselves for their lot.

I read ALL the evidence -- whether I like it or not.. Even force myself to watch 6 minutes of Rachael Maddow EVERY night.

That report is LARGELY a weather summary for 2012.. With VERY LITTLE damning evidence for your gig as the tribal witch doctor of Climate Change.

A weather summery of 2012 with past information on all the parameters measured. And that is what is important. That we have the present information put into context with the past, that tells us what direction the climate is going and what affect we are having on that climate.

And what the hell does Rachel Maddow have to do with the science behind AGW? I don't watch her or any of the talk show people. Far more information on the things I am interest in available in peer reviewed journals.

 

[Old Rocks]

Weather--->Tornadoes, hurricanes and extratropical cyclones.
Climate--->Avg temperature or means placement of jet stream(can also mean placement of those weather patterns).

A more ice free arctic caused by a warming climate can shift the jet stream and cause a different weather pattern then occurred 200 years ago.

Most of this years inactivity in tornadoes were caused by the jet stream being further eastward. This didn't allow moisture from the gulf to spawn the twisters.

I'm NOT saying this is climate...Just interesting how it played out this year. On the other hand the longer term pattern of WEATHER can be charged to differ by the change in climate.

Do you agree?

Almost.. Certainly to make the climate change argument -- you have to show evidence of increase strength and likelihood of violent weather. That's my bottom line. So -- what does 1deg mean to a cumulo-nimbus? Tornadoes require at LEAST 5 neccessary conditions that either of us could reel off --- there are probably more. I don't think that 1 deg of temperature creates tornadoes more often. The most likely formation of tornadoes doesn't come from organized weather fronts, but from isolated super cells. These are pretty independent of "average surface temp" in their formation because they require a temp. DIFFERENCE more than just a degree surface boost.

((I can however see increased activity of organized weather fronts because they feed on a wide area of humidity and surface warmth.))

Pretty similiar line of reasoning for hurricane strength and formation.. If that 1deg surface boost had an effect --- we would see it during AMO, PDO periods. Although there is SOME relationship to those natural temp. cycles, it's really NOT definitive.

If the relationship is NOT predictive for AMO and PDO --- what makes anyone think that a 0.5degC boost in sea surface temp. is a SUFFICIENT condition to make claims about violence increasing?

I don't do ice.. Pure and simple. And I know that's heartless. But glaciers were doomed 200 yrs ago.. And I'm not amazed that when temps get above freezing in the summer, all of sudden the ice starts to melt. It's a threshold being breached, not a warning from the gods.

Just can't get all jazzed about ice like I could about all the OTHER purported castastrophic weather changes that have been proposed..

The implication given for Climate Change is that temp is a SUFFICIENT condition for all these imagined changes. SURELY the energy in the system increases. But so does dam near every variable. Right now --- increased winds from N. Africa are snuffing out Atl. hurricanes like a 5 yr old birthday boy. And belching clouds of dry particulates all the way to the Caribbean..

It's a lot more complicated than the poly sci / media driven / politically correct vision....

Flat, you are the one pushing the poly sci, Fox media driver, politically correct vision. The scientists are the ones presenting the evidence and interpreting what that evidence means for our future from the basic laws of physics.

And you absolutely hate it when very complete evidence like this is presented. Presented by scientists from damn near every country in the world. You see, Orogenicman and others are presenting what real scientists state, not the meanderings of obese junkies and undegreed ex-TV weathermen.

 

[gslack]

I have only fast read 36 pages. But have seen all kinds of information on atmospheric water vapor, permafrost temperatures, stratospheric temperatures, tropospheric temperatures, and many, many other factors in the climate.

No, you do not care how many scientists are offering supporting evidence, what the evidence is, or how it was gathered. You have your mind made up, and no amount of reality is going to change it. You are willfully ignorant, and proud of it. No differant than the rednecks I used to see on the greenchain in the sawmills. No one could convince them that they needed to up their educational level, that their job was going to be taken over by a machine. Now they are bitter old men, not having had a job, or decent paying job, in a couple of decades. And they blame everybody but themselves for their lot.

I read ALL the evidence -- whether I like it or not.. Even force myself to watch 6 minutes of Rachael Maddow EVERY night.

That report is LARGELY a weather summary for 2012.. With VERY LITTLE damning evidence for your gig as the tribal witch doctor of Climate Change.

A weather summery of 2012 with past information on all the parameters measured. And that is what is important. That we have the present information put into context with the past, that tells us what direction the climate is going and what affect we are having on that climate.

And what the hell does Rachel Maddow have to do with the science behind AGW? I don't watch her or any of the talk show people. Far more information on the things I am interest in available in peer reviewed journals.

Oh stop with your "peer review" bullshit.. You just posted an IPCC boot-licking paper, you only like peer-review when it suits you. When a peer reviewed source doesn't comply with the warmer manifesto you scream "burn the blasphemer!"..

 

[orogenicman]

Weather--->Tornadoes, hurricanes and extratropical cyclones.
Climate--->Avg temperature or means placement of jet stream(can also mean placement of those weather patterns).

A more ice free arctic caused by a warming climate can shift the jet stream and cause a different weather pattern then occurred 200 years ago.

Most of this years inactivity in tornadoes were caused by the jet stream being further eastward. This didn't allow moisture from the gulf to spawn the twisters.

I'm NOT saying this is climate...Just interesting how it played out this year. On the other hand the longer term pattern of WEATHER can be charged to differ by the change in climate.

Do you agree?

Almost.. Certainly to make the climate change argument -- you have to show evidence of increase strength and likelihood of violent weather. That's my bottom line. So -- what does 1deg mean to a cumulo-nimbus? Tornadoes require at LEAST 5 neccessary conditions that either of us could reel off --- there are probably more. I don't think that 1 deg of temperature creates tornadoes more often. The most likely formation of tornadoes doesn't come from organized weather fronts, but from isolated super cells. These are pretty independent of "average surface temp" in their formation because they require a temp. DIFFERENCE more than just a degree surface boost.

((I can however see increased activity of organized weather fronts because they feed on a wide area of humidity and surface warmth.))

Pretty similiar line of reasoning for hurricane strength and formation.. If that 1deg surface boost had an effect --- we would see it during AMO, PDO periods. Although there is SOME relationship to those natural temp. cycles, it's really NOT definitive.

If the relationship is NOT predictive for AMO and PDO --- what makes anyone think that a 0.5degC boost in sea surface temp. is a SUFFICIENT condition to make claims about violence increasing?

I don't do ice.. Pure and simple. And I know that's heartless. But glaciers were doomed 200 yrs ago.. And I'm not amazed that when temps get above freezing in the summer, all of sudden the ice starts to melt. It's a threshold being breached, not a warning from the gods.

Just can't get all jazzed about ice like I could about all the OTHER purported castastrophic weather changes that have been proposed..

The implication given for Climate Change is that temp is a SUFFICIENT condition for all these imagined changes. SURELY the energy in the system increases. But so does dam near every variable. Right now --- increased winds from N. Africa are snuffing out Atl. hurricanes like a 5 yr old birthday boy. And belching clouds of dry particulates all the way to the Caribbean..

It's a lot more complicated than the poly sci / media driven / politically correct vision....

Flat, you are the one pushing the poly sci, Fox media driver, politically correct vision. The scientists are the ones presenting the evidence and interpreting what that evidence means for our future from the basic laws of physics.

And you absolutely hate it when very complete evidence like this is presented. Presented by scientists from damn near every country in the world. You see, Orogenicman and others are presenting what real scientists state, not the meanderings of obese junkies and undegreed ex-TV weathermen.

And a massage therapist. Don't forget the massage therapist.

 

[flacaltenn]

So --- NONE of you "every drought, every flood, every snowfall, every tornado" folks got ANY credible evidence for your hysteria out of that report..

Good --- let's move on... --- without the politcal commentaries on what you THINK my politics are..

 

[orogenicman]

The evidence is in the hundreds of peer reviewed papers published by hundreds of the worlds scientists from hundreds of institutions in dozens of countries. So if you want to promote it as a conspiracy theory, you might want to take a hint from the Apollo hoax conspiracy theorists. At least they fully understand that no one in the scientific community takes them seriously.

 

[flacaltenn]

The evidence is in the hundreds of peer reviewed papers published by hundreds of the worlds scientists from hundreds of institutions in dozens of countries. So if you want to promote it as a conspiracy theory, you might want to take a hint from the Apollo hoax conspiracy theorists. At least they fully understand that no one in the scientific community takes them seriously.

Not so fast.. We're talking about a yearly weather report that has little to bolster your argument about CC happening today.. If there's no evidence IN THERE --- what makes you think that academic studies are gonna proclaim about catastrophic CC happening today?

We're talking about CONTEMPORARY evidence of CC. NOT WARMING. We're talking about Congressional Panels of experts blaming the deaths of 19 firefighters on CC.

If you got 100s of papers saying that Sandy WAS a CC event and Tornado outbreaks in 2012 were CC events --- let's see 'em...

 

[orogenicman]

The evidence is in the hundreds of peer reviewed papers published by hundreds of the worlds scientists from hundreds of institutions in dozens of countries. So if you want to promote it as a conspiracy theory, you might want to take a hint from the Apollo hoax conspiracy theorists. At least they fully understand that no one in the scientific community takes them seriously.

Not so fast.. We're talking about a yearly weather report that has little to bolster your argument about CC happening today.. If there's no evidence IN THERE --- what makes you think that academic studies are gonna proclaim about catastrophic CC happening today?

We're talking about CONTEMPORARY evidence of CC. NOT WARMING. We're talking about Congressional Panels of experts blaming the deaths of 19 firefighters on CC.

If you got 100s of papers saying that Sandy WAS a CC event and Tornado outbreaks in 2012 were CC events --- let's see 'em...

Misdirection. Try again.

 

[flacaltenn]

The evidence is in the hundreds of peer reviewed papers published by hundreds of the worlds scientists from hundreds of institutions in dozens of countries. So if you want to promote it as a conspiracy theory, you might want to take a hint from the Apollo hoax conspiracy theorists. At least they fully understand that no one in the scientific community takes them seriously.

Not so fast.. We're talking about a yearly weather report that has little to bolster your argument about CC happening today.. If there's no evidence IN THERE --- what makes you think that academic studies are gonna proclaim about catastrophic CC happening today?

We're talking about CONTEMPORARY evidence of CC. NOT WARMING. We're talking about Congressional Panels of experts blaming the deaths of 19 firefighters on CC.

If you got 100s of papers saying that Sandy WAS a CC event and Tornado outbreaks in 2012 were CC events --- let's see 'em...

Misdirection. Try again.

\

NOT misdirection.. I'm asking you why you post yearly weather summaries if you don't believe that it's evidence of CURRENT Climate Change?

The MEDIA and political leadership certainly feels free to make that assertion as well..
GoldiRocks and Saigon are High Priests of weather as climate. Abraham just feels it's right.

DO YOU?

 

[orogenicman]

Not so fast.. We're talking about a yearly weather report that has little to bolster your argument about CC happening today.. If there's no evidence IN THERE --- what makes you think that academic studies are gonna proclaim about catastrophic CC happening today?

We're talking about CONTEMPORARY evidence of CC. NOT WARMING. We're talking about Congressional Panels of experts blaming the deaths of 19 firefighters on CC.

If you got 100s of papers saying that Sandy WAS a CC event and Tornado outbreaks in 2012 were CC events --- let's see 'em...

Misdirection. Try again.

\

NOT misdirection.. I'm asking you why you post yearly weather summaries if you don't believe that it's evidence of CURRENT Climate Change?

The MEDIA and political leadership certainly feels free to make that assertion as well..
GoldiRocks and Saigon are High Priests of weather as climate. Abraham just feels it's right.

DO YOU?

That you believe that a detailed report on global climate data for 2012 signed by 350 scientists to be a "weather report" shows the depth of your ignorance, and is a perfect example of why people like you are not taken seriously by the scientific community. Congratulations.

 

[flacaltenn]

You are still posting nonsense, asshole. At least scan the damned report before you post utter nonsense on it. This is half of one page of the list of contributors to that report, one sixteenth of the scientists contributing. Does this look like a list of NOAA scientists?

What the hell is wrong with you knownothings? You think you can just lie about what a report says without the rest of us knowing it?

THen NBC got this all wrong didn't they? THEY SAY --- it's a product of NOAA..

World continues to broil, NOAA's 2012 report on warming finds - NBC News.com

A new massive federal study says the world in 2012 sweltered with continued signs of climate change. Rising sea levels, snow melt, heat buildup in the oceans, and melting Arctic sea ice and Greenland ice sheets, all broke or nearly broke records, but temperatures only sneaked into the top 10.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on Tuesday issued a peer-reviewed 260-page report, which agency chief Kathryn Sullivan calls its annual "checking on the pulse of the planet."

NOAA HIRES scientists to make their products.. It's a very "selective" process....

 

[flacaltenn]

Misdirection. Try again.

\

NOT misdirection.. I'm asking you why you post yearly weather summaries if you don't believe that it's evidence of CURRENT Climate Change?

The MEDIA and political leadership certainly feels free to make that assertion as well..
GoldiRocks and Saigon are High Priests of weather as climate. Abraham just feels it's right.

DO YOU?

That you believe that a detailed report on global climate data for 2012 signed by 350 scientists to be a "weather report" shows the depth of your ignorance, and is a perfect example of why people like you are not taken seriously by the scientific community. Congratulations.

Don't care if it was done by Al Roker.. I've asked 4 times to have any hysterical CC advocates to tell me what damning evidence is in there (besides ice melting).. Seems like the OP is dead if no one wants to volunteer to do that...

 

[orogenicman]

You are still posting nonsense, asshole. At least scan the damned report before you post utter nonsense on it. This is half of one page of the list of contributors to that report, one sixteenth of the scientists contributing. Does this look like a list of NOAA scientists?

What the hell is wrong with you knownothings? You think you can just lie about what a report says without the rest of us knowing it?

THen NBC got this all wrong didn't they? THEY SAY --- it's a product of NOAA..

World continues to broil, NOAA's 2012 report on warming finds - NBC News.com

A new massive federal study says the world in 2012 sweltered with continued signs of climate change. Rising sea levels, snow melt, heat buildup in the oceans, and melting Arctic sea ice and Greenland ice sheets, all broke or nearly broke records, but temperatures only sneaked into the top 10.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on Tuesday issued a peer-reviewed 260-page report, which agency chief Kathryn Sullivan calls its annual "checking on the pulse of the planet."

NOAA HIRES scientists to make their products.. It's a very "selective" process....

Yeah, because what a damn shame that they didn't hire a massage therapist to write their papers for them.

 

[flacaltenn]

You are still posting nonsense, asshole. At least scan the damned report before you post utter nonsense on it. This is half of one page of the list of contributors to that report, one sixteenth of the scientists contributing. Does this look like a list of NOAA scientists?

What the hell is wrong with you knownothings? You think you can just lie about what a report says without the rest of us knowing it?

THen NBC got this all wrong didn't they? THEY SAY --- it's a product of NOAA..

World continues to broil, NOAA's 2012 report on warming finds - NBC News.com

A new massive federal study says the world in 2012 sweltered with continued signs of climate change. Rising sea levels, snow melt, heat buildup in the oceans, and melting Arctic sea ice and Greenland ice sheets, all broke or nearly broke records, but temperatures only sneaked into the top 10.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on Tuesday issued a peer-reviewed 260-page report, which agency chief Kathryn Sullivan calls its annual "checking on the pulse of the planet."

NOAA HIRES scientists to make their products.. It's a very "selective" process....

Yeah, because what a damn shame that they didn't hire a massage therapist to write their papers for them.

Well maybe you're right.. We now TODAY have a "primative culture anthropologist" running the EPA ---- so might be slipping on credentials all over the place...

What a clusterfuck that's gonna be..

 

[orogenicman]

THen NBC got this all wrong didn't they? THEY SAY --- it's a product of NOAA..

World continues to broil, NOAA's 2012 report on warming finds - NBC News.com



NOAA HIRES scientists to make their products.. It's a very "selective" process....

Yeah, because what a damn shame that they didn't hire a massage therapist to write their papers for them.

Well maybe you're right.. We now TODAY have a "primative culture anthropologist" running the EPA ---- so might be slipping on credentials all over the place...

What a clusterfuck that's gonna be..

She also worked for four years for the EPA in its water quality division and for the Superfund, and has been a consultant and advisor for the EPA for most of her career. Now, is there any other issue with regard to Nixon's program that you'd like to get off your chest, or do you want to get back on topic?

 

[gslack]

You are still posting nonsense, asshole. At least scan the damned report before you post utter nonsense on it. This is half of one page of the list of contributors to that report, one sixteenth of the scientists contributing. Does this look like a list of NOAA scientists?

What the hell is wrong with you knownothings? You think you can just lie about what a report says without the rest of us knowing it?

THen NBC got this all wrong didn't they? THEY SAY --- it's a product of NOAA..

World continues to broil, NOAA's 2012 report on warming finds - NBC News.com

A new massive federal study says the world in 2012 sweltered with continued signs of climate change. Rising sea levels, snow melt, heat buildup in the oceans, and melting Arctic sea ice and Greenland ice sheets, all broke or nearly broke records, but temperatures only sneaked into the top 10.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on Tuesday issued a peer-reviewed 260-page report, which agency chief Kathryn Sullivan calls its annual "checking on the pulse of the planet."

NOAA HIRES scientists to make their products.. It's a very "selective" process....

Yeah, because what a damn shame that they didn't hire a massage therapist to write their papers for them.

What's with all the "massage therapist" references? Were you violated by one? Or did you get kicked out of one of their businesses for trying to get lucky?