Extreme weather events that show AGW

[CrusaderFrank]

You made the statement. You implied consensus of certain people means the matter is settled.

Here is a hint, Rook, when you make general blanket statements expect to be called out on it.

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.

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

"The core of the analysis carried out by [Humlum et al.] involved wavelet-based curve-fitting, with a vague idea that the moon and solar cycles somehow can affect the Earth’s climate..."

The AGW Moonbat Cult thinks that the Big Yellow Thing in the Sky's affect on our climate is "Vague"

Priceless

 

[whitehall]

Come on global warming cultists. If the incredible assault on the environment during the almost ten years of WW2 throughout the world with oil spills from gigantic ships and deforestation from freaking bombs and the deaths of twenty million people didn't cause mother earth to puke, how is the relative gentle treatment of the modern world affecting the environment? How do you factor in the sun's influence? If it stays 20 and 30 degrees below average for a month or two doesn't that indicate global cooling? Are the "scientists" going to move their temperature sensors to the rim of volcanoes to make up the difference? There was no such theory of global warming before a disgruntled pervert failed politician with no background in science tried to make a buck by selling fake carbon credits.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Now dumb *****, 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

I have more to show......

 

[skookerasbil]

Education and degrees do not confer the assumption of correctness.

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

Fail..... actually s0n, tens of thousands of Ma and PhD scientists call bullshit on AGW

LMAO!!!

No, they don't "son".

Whatever you say s0n....

Well I tell ya what, why don't you come up with a list of 1,000. That should be easy if "tens of thousands" actually deny it right?

LMAO.... evidently missed my link s0n.

Pwn'd

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Now dumb *****, 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......

Well, snow is a thing of the past (1) and the Arctic is ice free (2), right?

(1) ‘Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past’ – ‘Children just aren’t going to know what snow is’ -- East Angelia Data Manufacturing Facility, remember them? March 2000

(2) "Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. "So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative." BBC Dec 2007

 

[Sunsettommy]

CrusaderFrank writes,

"(2) "Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. "So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative." BBC Dec 2007"

What is so funny about these ignorant warmists who wail over a small reduction of Summer ice these days as if DOOM is right around the corner is they fail to show that the small increase of atmospheric CO2 is causing it, when for a few THOUSAND years in the early part of the current interglacial period, there were little to NO Summer ice, while CO2 stayed in the 260-280 ppm range the whole time.

The MWP was the last main period of little to no summer ice in the Arctic, as shown below.

Here is a published science paper on it:

"Taylor & Francis online

Birds and Climatic Change

Kenneth Williamson (1975) Birds and Climatic Change, Bird Study, 22:3,143-164, DOI: 10.1080/00063657509476459

Published online: 24 Jun 2009

“HISTORICAL REVIEW

Between 1000 and 1300 average summer temperatures were about 1°C higher than today, with the mean annual temperature higher by perhaps 4°C in a largely ice-free Arctic. Eric the Red, a renowned world citizen of that time, has been much maligned as the first progressive publicity man for giving Greenland a false image in order to attract settlers; but in truth, the southwest of that vast country was warmer and greener by far than at any time until the Fieldfares Turdus pilaris arrived there in the mid-1930s. The sea-temperature of the Atlantic was higher than it has been since, and there appears to have been none or very little ice to hinder the Vikings’ communications between Iceland, Greenland,Newfoundland and Labrador (Mowat 1965). Indeed Brooks (1926) considers that the polar ice-cap may have disappeared entirely during the summer months, to build anew each winter.”

LINK

I have a lot more like this...........

 

[skookerasbil]

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......

Well, snow is a thing of the past (1) and the Arctic is ice free (2), right?

(1) ‘Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past’ – ‘Children just aren’t going to know what snow is’ -- East Angelia Data Manufacturing Facility, remember them? March 2000

(2) "Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. "So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative." BBC Dec 2007

LMAO.... and do you know Frank .....every single one of these climate crusader Bozo's reject that they ever associated themselves with those predictions. Thankfully most of the public has been paying attention and is aware of the shell game these idiots play.

 

[harmonica]

what exactly are we supposed to do?? stop driving cars? stop heating our homes and live in teepees??
populations are going up ---if there is global warming it's too late to do anything

 

[skookerasbil]

what exactly are we supposed to do?? stop driving cars? stop heating our homes and live in teepees??
populations are going up ---if there is global warming it's too late to do anything

Thankfully, most of the public understands that. But we are surrounded by people with mental disorders.

 

[jc456]

There are now events that can definitely be attributed to man's influence on the climate.

so let's see the weather from 1000 years ago. ready set get it. I want to see all of the barometer readings.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You made the statement. You implied consensus of certain people means the matter is settled.

Here is a hint, Rook, when you make general blanket statements expect to be called out on it.

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.

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

When all else fails pull out Dana Nuttercellie.. Far left wacko goon who doesn't have a clue how the atmosphere works... And all of his papers shown works of fiction based on failed fantasy modeling that has predicted nothing (IE:FALSIFIED)

 

[Coyote]

There is very little discussion of the topic here and quite a bit of off topic trolling. Extreme weather conditions are definitively associated with human activity per op. Are they or aren’t they? Make your arguments and support them.

 

[jc456]

There are now events that can definitely be attributed to man's influence on the climate.

so let's see the weather from 1000 years ago. ready set get it. I want to see all of the barometer readings.

then 10,000 years ago and 100,000 years ago. got any of them? dude rock is so so ignorant.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You made the statement. You implied consensus of certain people means the matter is settled.

Here is a hint, Rook, when you make general blanket statements expect to be called out on it.

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.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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.

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

When all else fails pull out Dana Nuttercellie.. Far left wacko goon who doesn't have a clue how the atmosphere works... And all of his papers shown works of fiction based on failed fantasy modeling that has predicted nothing (IE:FALSIFIED)

Dana Nucticelli, uses the Consensus fallacy over and over, a sign of a weak argument in his corner. He writes and thinks like a simpleton, completely ignoring the principles of FALSIFIABILITY, from What Is.com:

"Falsifiability is the capacity for some proposition, statement, theory or hypothesis to be proven wrong. That capacity is an essential component of the scientific method and hypothesis testing. In a scientific context, falsifiability is sometimes considered synonymous with testability."

How can anyone apply the principle of Falsifiability or Testability to their absurd modeling scenarios, all 100+ of them that runs to year 2100. Only raving lunatics take these worthless models seriously.

Meanwhile a simple examination of their few short term testable models have all ended in total failure. Dana doesn't think about the obvious because he is wedded to an insane idea that a trace molecule with a sliver within the wide IR window, and barely absorbs much of any Ongoing Terrestrial IR outflow, can dominate climate of the planet.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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

When all else fails pull out Dana Nuttercellie.. Far left wacko goon who doesn't have a clue how the atmosphere works... And all of his papers shown works of fiction based on failed fantasy modeling that has predicted nothing (IE:FALSIFIED)

Dana Nucticelli, uses the Consensus fallacy over and over, a sign of a weak argument in his corner. He writes and thinks like a simpleton, completely ignoring the principles of FALSIFIABILITY, from What Is.com:

"Falsifiability is the capacity for some proposition, statement, theory or hypothesis to be proven wrong. That capacity is an essential component of the scientific method and hypothesis testing. In a scientific context, falsifiability is sometimes considered synonymous with testability."

How can anyone apply the principle of Falsifiability or Testability to their absurd modeling scenarios, all 100+ of them that runs to year 2100. Only raving lunatics take these worthless models seriously.

Meanwhile a simple examination of their few short term testable models have all ended in total failure. Dana doesn't think about the obvious because he is wedded to an insane idea that a trace molecule with a sliver within the wide IR window, and barely absorbs much of any Ongoing Terrestrial IR outflow, can dominate climate of the planet.

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.

An informed populace is the only way you keep these people from duping and making slaves of everyone else..

 

[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......................................

 

[jc456]

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.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You made the statement. You implied consensus of certain people means the matter is settled.

Here is a hint, Rook, when you make general blanket statements expect to be called out on it.

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.

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

Wrong on every single point!

Tell me why every model your touting as proof fails empirical review.