Heavy Precipitation Over the US: Has it Increased as Some have Predicted it Should?
- Thread starter daveman
- Start date
RollingThunder
Gold Member
- Mar 22, 2010
- 4,818
- 525
- 155
No, we seem to playing: The Denier Cult Retard Can't Comprehend What the Liberal Is Saying. Again!
I said that he is retarded because he is retarded, just like you. Katzhitbrainz "listed some weather phonomena" that has happened in the past and will happen in the future. So What!!! The fact that the Earth has continuing weather is irrelevant to the fact that the Earth's climate patterns are changing due to AGW. His comment was extremely retarded and clueless, as are all of yours, davedumb, and just reflected the fact that he has no idea what he is talking about. And, of course, neither do you.
Well, neither, actually, as you would be able to see if you weren't so extremely retarded.
We've "had weather before", moron, but that says nothing about the Earth's currently changing climate patterns or the measured increase in extreme weather events that is a symptom of a warming world. You retards still can't quite seem to grasp the difference between 'weather' and 'climate'.
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
What's the Tornado season gonna be like next year Mr Climate Change????
Got a Forecast for Toledo this Christmas Eve?
If it's all so clear and obvious --- stick your neck out and tell us when lower Manhattan is gonna flood.
You're a truly valuable asset TinkerBelle if you think you have a theory and explanation for the CURRENT and FUTURE climate..
You guys can hardly do a TEMP forecast for 2 decades.. Let alone sea levels, hurricanes and droughts.
You are in the same position of a guy who claims to have predicted last weeks earthquake, but always gets the time, date, and location wrong on the next one...
AGW has made some of it's supporters BELIEVE THEY HAVE SUPERpowers.
when actually sadly, they don't... And neither do their superheroes who would never confuse weather with climate..
Got a Forecast for Toledo this Christmas Eve?
If it's all so clear and obvious --- stick your neck out and tell us when lower Manhattan is gonna flood.
You're a truly valuable asset TinkerBelle if you think you have a theory and explanation for the CURRENT and FUTURE climate..
You guys can hardly do a TEMP forecast for 2 decades.. Let alone sea levels, hurricanes and droughts.
You are in the same position of a guy who claims to have predicted last weeks earthquake, but always gets the time, date, and location wrong on the next one...
AGW has made some of it's supporters BELIEVE THEY HAVE SUPERpowers.
when actually sadly, they don't... And neither do their superheroes who would never confuse weather with climate..
Last edited:
RollingThunder
Gold Member
- Mar 22, 2010
- 4,818
- 525
- 155
And another incredibly demented and extremely retarded post from ol' fecalhead.
Fecalhead is way too stupid to comprehend the fact that climate models do a pretty good job of predicting long term trends but nobody can predict specific weather events far in advance. Just another denier cult straw man argument from one of the resident retardos.
daveman
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #125
Oh, trust me, I know the difference.
When it can be blamed on AGW, it's climate. If it can be said to disprove AGW, it's weather.
You can get irrational all you like, but that's simply irrefutable.
Run along now, boy. Your small-child-in-a-roomful-of-adults-screaming-"Pee-pee! Poo-poo!" act is getting old.
daveman
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #126
CO2 Science
Background
The authors write that "heavy snowfall and extreme snow depth cause serious loss of human life and property in many middle and high latitude countries almost every winter," and they say that "it can be argued that the most damaging and memorable winters are those with extremely large amounts of snow," since "heavy snowfalls are often accompanied by extreme snow storms and avalanches which cause hazardous conditions on roads, railways and airports - sometimes even leading to the interruption of major transport routes." And with these facts in mind, they note that "climate models predict a likely increase in the frequency of extreme precipitation events in a future warmer world," citing the IPCC (2007), while adding that such is also predicted by regional climate models, citing Frei et al. (2006) and Beniston et al. (2007).
--
What was learned
The two Swiss researchers from the Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research at Davos say their "analysis of extreme snow depth and extreme snowfall" revealed that "none of the stations, not even the highest one at 2,500 m asl, has experienced significant (p<0.05) increasing extreme amounts during the last 80 years." Quite to the contrary, in fact, they report that "almost half (44%) of the stations reveal a significantly decreasing trend of extreme snow depth," while "the other half showed no significant trends." In addition, their GEV analysis indicated that "all stations show decreasing tendencies for HSmax." And last of all, in harmony with these findings, they indicate that several other studies have shown that "mean snow depth and snow days have been decreasing in the Alps in the last 20 years (Marty, 2008; Durand et al., 2009; Valt and Cianfarra, 2010), especially at altitudes below 1,300 m (Laternser and Schneebeli, 2003; Scherrer et al., 2004)."
What it means
Clearly, the predictions of the IPCC regarding a propensity for more extreme precipitation events to occur in a warming world has not been seen in Switzerland. In fact, just the opposite appears to be the case there.
The authors write that "heavy snowfall and extreme snow depth cause serious loss of human life and property in many middle and high latitude countries almost every winter," and they say that "it can be argued that the most damaging and memorable winters are those with extremely large amounts of snow," since "heavy snowfalls are often accompanied by extreme snow storms and avalanches which cause hazardous conditions on roads, railways and airports - sometimes even leading to the interruption of major transport routes." And with these facts in mind, they note that "climate models predict a likely increase in the frequency of extreme precipitation events in a future warmer world," citing the IPCC (2007), while adding that such is also predicted by regional climate models, citing Frei et al. (2006) and Beniston et al. (2007).
--
What was learned
The two Swiss researchers from the Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research at Davos say their "analysis of extreme snow depth and extreme snowfall" revealed that "none of the stations, not even the highest one at 2,500 m asl, has experienced significant (p<0.05) increasing extreme amounts during the last 80 years." Quite to the contrary, in fact, they report that "almost half (44%) of the stations reveal a significantly decreasing trend of extreme snow depth," while "the other half showed no significant trends." In addition, their GEV analysis indicated that "all stations show decreasing tendencies for HSmax." And last of all, in harmony with these findings, they indicate that several other studies have shown that "mean snow depth and snow days have been decreasing in the Alps in the last 20 years (Marty, 2008; Durand et al., 2009; Valt and Cianfarra, 2010), especially at altitudes below 1,300 m (Laternser and Schneebeli, 2003; Scherrer et al., 2004)."
What it means
Clearly, the predictions of the IPCC regarding a propensity for more extreme precipitation events to occur in a warming world has not been seen in Switzerland. In fact, just the opposite appears to be the case there.
The Skeptic's Case - David M.W. Evans - Mises Daily
Conclusions
All the data here is impeccably sourced — satellites, Argo, and weather balloons.[18]
The air and ocean temperature data shows that the climate models overestimate temperature rises. The climate establishment suggest that cooling due to undetected aerosols might be responsible for the failure of the models to date, but this excuse is wearing thin — it continues not to warm as much as they said it would, or in the way they said it would. On the other hand, the rise in air temperature has been greater than the skeptics say could be due to CO2. The skeptic's excuse is that the rise is mainly due to other forces — and they point out that the world has been in a fairly steady warming trend of 0.5°C per century since 1680 (with alternating ~30 year periods of warming and mild cooling) where as the vast bulk of all human CO2 emissions have been after 1945.
We've checked all the main predictions of the climate models against the best data:
Test
Climate Models
Air temperatures from 1988
Overestimated rise, even if CO2 is drastically cut
Air temperatures from 1990
Overestimated trend rise
Ocean temperatures from 2003
Overestimated trend rise greatly
Atmospheric hotspot
Completely missing → no amplification
Outgoing radiation
Opposite to reality → no amplification
The climate models get them all wrong. The missing hotspot and outgoing radiation data both, independently, prove that the amplification in the climate models is not present. Without the amplification, the climate model temperature predictions would be cut by at least two-thirds, which would explain why they overestimated the recent air and ocean temperature increases. Therefore,
The climate models are fundamentally flawed. Their assumed threefold amplification by feedbacks does not in fact exist.
The climate models overestimate temperature rises due to CO2 by at least a factor of three.
The skeptical view is compatible with the data.
All the data here is impeccably sourced — satellites, Argo, and weather balloons.[18]
The air and ocean temperature data shows that the climate models overestimate temperature rises. The climate establishment suggest that cooling due to undetected aerosols might be responsible for the failure of the models to date, but this excuse is wearing thin — it continues not to warm as much as they said it would, or in the way they said it would. On the other hand, the rise in air temperature has been greater than the skeptics say could be due to CO2. The skeptic's excuse is that the rise is mainly due to other forces — and they point out that the world has been in a fairly steady warming trend of 0.5°C per century since 1680 (with alternating ~30 year periods of warming and mild cooling) where as the vast bulk of all human CO2 emissions have been after 1945.
We've checked all the main predictions of the climate models against the best data:
Test
Climate Models
Air temperatures from 1988
Overestimated rise, even if CO2 is drastically cut
Air temperatures from 1990
Overestimated trend rise
Ocean temperatures from 2003
Overestimated trend rise greatly
Atmospheric hotspot
Completely missing → no amplification
Outgoing radiation
Opposite to reality → no amplification
The climate models get them all wrong. The missing hotspot and outgoing radiation data both, independently, prove that the amplification in the climate models is not present. Without the amplification, the climate model temperature predictions would be cut by at least two-thirds, which would explain why they overestimated the recent air and ocean temperature increases. Therefore,
The climate models are fundamentally flawed. Their assumed threefold amplification by feedbacks does not in fact exist.
The climate models overestimate temperature rises due to CO2 by at least a factor of three.
The skeptical view is compatible with the data.
C3: For 27 Years NASA's Climate Model Warming Predictions Wrong - Odds Are 1 In 134 Million of Being This Wrong
As the two above charts from the previous article reveal, human CO2 emissions actually have well exceeded the previous 'business-as-usual' (BAU) scenario - 429 billion tons versus 285 billion tons of emissions. But global temperatures have never exceeded NASA's BAU-scenario prediction after 1984 - NEVER!
That is 27 years of global temperatures being below the NASA climate model BAU prediction despite CO2 emissions through the roof, so-to-speak. This represents mind boggling odds.
What are the odds of NASA being so wrong for so long? What are the odds actual temperature would never exceed the prediction of the powerful, sophisticated computer simulations that billions of taxpayer dollars paid for, hmmm?
An incredible 1 in 134 million odds.
This is like flipping a coin 134 million times and it comes up 'heads' every single time - like almost impossible, no? As 'C3' has pointed out in numerous articles, climate model predictions are worthless, which this style of analysis confirms.
That is 27 years of global temperatures being below the NASA climate model BAU prediction despite CO2 emissions through the roof, so-to-speak. This represents mind boggling odds.
What are the odds of NASA being so wrong for so long? What are the odds actual temperature would never exceed the prediction of the powerful, sophisticated computer simulations that billions of taxpayer dollars paid for, hmmm?
An incredible 1 in 134 million odds.
This is like flipping a coin 134 million times and it comes up 'heads' every single time - like almost impossible, no? As 'C3' has pointed out in numerous articles, climate model predictions are worthless, which this style of analysis confirms.
Your models are crap.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Once again, you earn the title 'dumb ****'.
The prediction for weather? The weather swings will be wider and wilder with an overall increase in warmth. And that is exactly what we have been seeing.
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
But yet you and OldieRocks and Saigon sit here and piss your pants about EVERY SINGLE abberant weather event. OR is tallying up the damages as we speak for events that were NOT predicted from climate models. In fact, I was challenged by Mamooth to go out and find any scientific AUTHORITY that was saying that Hurricanes would intensify and droughts would become common and flooding would simultaneously coexist with increased tornadic activity.. I found NONE. All of that has been conjured up in YOUR alarmist blogosphere by folks who can't tell us how many storms will occur next year or when or where they might likely occur. Yet you will take credit for ANYTHING weather that might occur out of the ordinary.
You truly are the guy who CLAIMS to have predicted last week earthquake, but has no freaking idea of where or when the next big one might strike. That's not science. You have no support from NOAA or NASA (except for radicals like Hansen) or any other credible climate tracking source. Because there is not enough knowledge to do that.
The alarmists have jumped the shark with the giddy thought that MAN has been the primary cause of the warming and that they have been endowed with the power to cast blame for bad crop years or tornadoes that hit city centers instead of pastureland.
That's a primal trick used by Shamans and Medicine Men to raise their level of importance in the tribe. It's primitive, it's dishonest, and it has NOTHING to do with a 0.5degC rise in average Global Surface Temperatures. The climate IS changing. Temps ARE going up. Cut the crap, strap on a Depends and stick to the science..
Last edited:
Saigon
Gold Member
Yes, fair enough. Here it is:
MELBOURNE — Australian grape growers believe that they are the canary in the coal mine of global warming, as a long drought forces wine makers to rethink the styles of wine they can produce and the regions they can grow in.
The three largest grape-growing regions in Australia, the driest inhabited continent, all depend on irrigation to survive. The high cost of water has made life tough for growers.
Industry groups estimate that of the 7,000 or so wine growers, as many as 1,000 may be forced to leave the industry this year because their vineyards are no longer financially viable.
"Climate change is the biggest issue we face," said Stephen Strachan, chief executive of the Winemakers' Federation of Australia. "Relatively small changes in temperature and precipitation do have reasonably large impacts in terms of wine style.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/business/worldbusiness/25iht-wine.1.11395929.html?pagewanted=all
There are stories like this happening in a dozen countries around the world right now. Spain I mentioned earlier, but there are several others as well.
Saigon
Gold Member
Flac -
NASA:
Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.
Climate Change: Causes
NOOA: (which has entire swathes of data on climate change)
According to the range of possible forcing scenarios, and taking into account uncertainty in climate model performance, the IPCC projects a best estimate of global temperature increase of 1.8 - 4.0°C with a possible range of 1.1 - 6.4°C by 2100, depending on which emissions scenario is used. However, this global average will integrate widely varying regional responses, such as the likelihood that land areas will warm much faster than ocean temperatures, particularly those land areas in northern high latitudes (and mostly in the cold season). Additionally, it is very likely that heat waves and other hot extremes will increase.
Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions
NASA:
Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.
Climate Change: Causes
NOOA: (which has entire swathes of data on climate change)
According to the range of possible forcing scenarios, and taking into account uncertainty in climate model performance, the IPCC projects a best estimate of global temperature increase of 1.8 - 4.0°C with a possible range of 1.1 - 6.4°C by 2100, depending on which emissions scenario is used. However, this global average will integrate widely varying regional responses, such as the likelihood that land areas will warm much faster than ocean temperatures, particularly those land areas in northern high latitudes (and mostly in the cold season). Additionally, it is very likely that heat waves and other hot extremes will increase.
Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions
Last edited:
RollingThunder
Gold Member
- Mar 22, 2010
- 4,818
- 525
- 155
Oh davedumb, you poor confused retard, you don't know the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground, and you demonstrate that fact every time you post.
Saigon
Gold Member
Daveman -
Let's face it man - you simply lack the basic honesty to debate this topic.
You asked for proof - I gave you that proof. You ran away.
I give up on you.
Last edited:
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 160,981
- 87,426
- 2,645
Wow! Vineyards are greatly subject to variations in the micro environment! Wow!
So that's why wine from a First growth French winery taste so different from a winery in NJ!
I learn so much from the Warmers.
So that's why wine from a First growth French winery taste so different from a winery in NJ!
I learn so much from the Warmers.
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 160,981
- 87,426
- 2,645
When you have absolutely no real science, you go to anecdotal statements, computer models, a tree ring and insults.
That's global warming "Science" for you
That's global warming "Science" for you
Saigon
Gold Member
Frank -
No, you do not learn because you have no interest in the topic.
You restrict yourself here to childish one liners because you know that you can not afford to engage in the topic.
By all means read the material on how climate change is impacting the wine industry, and come up with an adult response.
No, you do not learn because you have no interest in the topic.
You restrict yourself here to childish one liners because you know that you can not afford to engage in the topic.
By all means read the material on how climate change is impacting the wine industry, and come up with an adult response.
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 160,981
- 87,426
- 2,645
Clearly you don't know dick about the wine industry because climate change has been effecting it since the Romans.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
-
Code Stink is staying at 5 Star Hotel in Cuba. Hopefully they don't return.- Started by Locke11_21
- Replies: 7
