Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says

My plan is to buy snowdog two rounds of beer, then when he isn't looking, whack him over the head real hard with a printed out copy of the IPCC report.

Whoops, did I say that out loud?

Im just happy there is a place to argue about this type of thing without the mods/admins locking the topic

Stovepipe wrote:My plan is to buy snowdog two rounds of beer, then when he isn't looking, whack him over the head real hard with a printed out copy of the IPCC report.

Whoops, did I say that out loud?

Hah, you've been trying to do that this whole thread...minus the 2 beers. Debate is debate, at the end of the day Stove is still the man. I respect the guy and he is right more than he is wrong. Just not on this topic. Did I say that out loud?

By the way Stove, continue to post links to interesting articles/studies. I've already read a few from the long ass list you posted yesterday.

snowdog wrote:

Stovepipe wrote:My plan is to buy snowdog two rounds of beer, then when he isn't looking, whack him over the head real hard with a printed out copy of the IPCC report.

Whoops, did I say that out loud?

Hah, you've been trying to do that this whole thread...minus the 2 beers. Debate is debate, at the end of the day Stove is still the man. I respect the guy and he is right more than he is wrong. Just not on this topic. Did I say that out loud?

By the way Stove, continue to post links to interesting articles/studies. I've already read a few from the long ass list you posted yesterday.

I appreciate that snowdog, I really do. Even though we don't see eye to eye on this issue let it be known that I not only respect your intelligence but also your debate skills. You are better at keeping your emotions in check than I am. When (not if) there is a Weather Spot meetup in middle TN, those beers are definitely on me. I look forward to the open minded exchange of information that will unfold in this thread going forward.

Stovepipe wrote:

You know how I know you have no experience with peer review? I work in academia and I've been involved with it directly. You're full of crap. Your "peer" isn't your buddy across the hall. It's often some guy on the other side of the world that is absolutely chomping at the bit to chew your paper up and spit it out. The scrutiny for getting into scientific journals can be downright nasty.

Also, so far we have 3 other posters who have weighed in on the topic. A total of 5 counting you and I. You have yourself as the lone supporter, math/met who seems to be in the middle and Toot/Mundie/myself in the skeptical category.

Because this thread represents the world as whole, yeah right. On your side you have a handful of politicians, the oil companies, and some neck beards on the internet. On my side I have every major scientific organization in the world and a large portion of public opinion, despite the anti-intellectual movement within the U.S. Math/Met is a gentleman and a scholar, he probably doesn't want to get his hands dirty in this thread and I don't blame him. The few things he has posted do not favor your arguments.

Just remember, CO2 is outpacing even the worst case projection scenario yet temps are closely following the best case model projection. The projections obviously have huge errors in how they are resolving CO2 and the positive feedback mechanism. If you think global temps are going to catch the worst case projection (A2) in the next 30 years you need to open your eyes. -PDO and a quiet sun = continued cooling. Also you have not provided one shred of evidence that CO2 is driving the warming cycle.

If these are your opinions, fine. You may even have some legitimate points in there, but the conclusions you are drawing conflict with the latest climate research. The Copenhagen report illustrates that models have been rather successful and even conservative on some of these projections. You can pretend that isn't the case but it doesn't change reality.

Your debate techniques are classic by the way. You can't refute my arguments so instead you have resorted to strawmen and guilt by association. You have repeatedly made conspiracy charges, mentioned Beck and Palin and know you are mentioning truthers and birthers. Yet you want to talk to me about intellectual dishonesty? Come on.

You keep using that word.


Quit being emo. I can't help it if your talking points overlap with Beck and Palin. It wasn't like I was building a case on that, it was a jab in passing. Go watch Al Gore's movie again and cry about it. (There's another jab, try not to pooch your lip out, it was a joke)

We haven't even talked about the real science of warming. So I don't know what science you think you have brought forth or what science I have turned my back on. The only science I know that we have really gotten into was the positive feedback study.

Unfortunately, much of this thread has been a meta discussion. We haven't been able to really talk about much science because you haven't even acknowledged half of the evidence I've brought to the table. I've out cited you, out linked you, and out charted you. It's not a pissing match but to say I've not backed my statements up is a lie. I've not even really shared many opinions in this thread. You on the other hand have spouted plenty, many of which you've provided nothing tangible to back up.

You haven't poked holes in any of my arguments. You tried to with the sea level but in that you just took my words out of context. I've said since you brought that up that there isn't enough data yet but the last 3 years have shown a downward trend (which it has). I also said that it was just a response mechanism to the cooling global temps that have been going on over the last 10 years. Once again intellectual dishonesty from you.

Let's see, I busted you on cherry picking at least once. You got owned by the data on sea level and warming, backpedaling doesn't change that. I called into question the inaccurate green ensemble spread on the Scarfetta chart that you were furiously masturbating to for several pages. No dishonesty here. You trying to discredit the scientific community with baseless claims of fraud is dishonest though.

You say I'm part of a tiny tiny minority. That doesn't bother me and it isn't as tiny as you think. Also people will be jumping in droves from your side over the next 20 years as people realize they have been duped and they see their more and more of their money being sucked down the energy hole in an already rough economy.

Lol...I meant to use that meme while this thread was hot....oh well

Quote fail. Great pic!

Nerds are now cool. Just watch Big Bang Theory.

Also, here is an interesting article from across the pond. Elderly woman banned from her doctor due to her "carbon footprint" from traveling, by car, 2 miles round-trip to see her Doctor.

LINK

snowdog wrote:Nerds are now cool. Just watch Big Bang Theory.

Also, here is an interesting article from across the pond. Elderly woman banned from her doctor due to her "carbon footprint" from traveling, by car, 2 miles round-trip to see her Doctor.

LINK

Ok yeah, that is downright idiotic. Geez.

BTW - Gore just bought a 9 million dollar mansion on the coast of California.

Seems like that would be a place not to buy a house if he truly believed the dire warnings he's been pushing.

But I guess with all the money he's made on his AGW films, lectures, and carbon credit company, 9 million bucks might be worth a couple years of great views of the Pacific?

Finally got around to checking out that Wood for Trees site that some of snowdog's temp charts came from. Pretty neat. You can slice and dice the data in lots of different ways.

http://woodfortrees.org/

I've done my part of offset my CO2 production. Planted over a dozen trees since movin' to TN. And I only cut three down that died. Otherwise, I hug every tree I see.

An early peek at the upcoming AR5. Looks some tweaks to both hindcasting and projections have been made. Hindcasting still looks to have some pretty bad errors starting around 1976 and going back. All projection means are still outpacing current global temp.

LINK TO EARLY ANALYSIS OF AR5 MODELING



Lets try a quick Snowdog model. Just going by comparative warming, with the 2 warming cycles in the 20th century by which to compare, (1910-1940 with low greenhouse emissions) and (1970-2000 steadily rising greenhouse emissions) there is only roughly a .04 C per decade difference in the 2 time periods. We'll assume greenhouse gases and their effects produced the .04C difference. If we were to assume greenhouse emissions keep going up at the same rate, you could assume a .08 C per decade increase in the next warming cycle (.195C per decade + .08 C = .275C per decade) (probably 2030-2060). We currently sit at .7C anomaly and are in a cooling cycle as well as a low sunspot cycle so we will assume a modest .2C drop. So starting at .5C in 2030 add 30 years of warming at .275C per decade you get 1.325 C by 2090 and heading into another cooling cycle. Again this is only if warming and cooling phases replicate that of the 20th century.

Snowdog's model at year 2100. Worst case scenario 1.5C anomaly, best case scenario 1.0C anomaly. My mean will probably be closer than the AR5 mean. Too bad I wont be alive (at least not in this dimension) to claim victory.

Evidently you can't edit posts in this section of the forum. My prediction paragraph should read towards the end "So starting at .5C in 2030 add 30 years of warming at .275C per decade you get 1.325 C by 2060. 2060 to 2090 should be another cooling phase but with increased sun activity vs the current cooling cycle so I'll assume a .1C drop bringing total anomaly for 21st century down to 1.225C. Then 10 more years of warming before the century ends."

Permissions should be fixed now, sorry about that. Let me know if you still can't edit.

Dick Durbin weighs in on Dallas tornadoes and AGW. I dont disagree with him on trying to live a more green life (I myself recycle what I can and have never owned a car that didn't get at least 30 mpg., that will probably shock Stove) but the scare mongering about loss of life, etc is just plain stupid. Its your money or your life? Typical politician.

Sen. Dick Durbin reacts to the tornadoes in Dallas, Texas earlier this week. Durbin calls for more laws regulating carbon output while he sends a dire warning that we must convert to hybrid cars or lose our life. Durbin says we must spend money now to fix the problem.

"It's your money or your life," he said a press conference. "We are either going to dedicate ourselves to a cleaner, more livable planet and accept the initial investment necessary or we're going to pay a heavier price in terms of loss of human life, damage and costs associated with it."

You can watch from the begining or go to 5:12 to listen to him on climate change...

Well James Hansen is at it again. This time comparing Global Warming to slavery. The AGW loonies have been out in full force here lately.

In his lecture, Hansen will argue that the challenge facing future generations from climate change is so urgent that a flat-rate global tax is needed to force immediate cuts in fossil fuel use. Ahead of receiving the award – which has previously been given to Sir David Attenborough, the ecologist James Lovelock, and the economist Amartya Sen – Hansen told the Guardian that the latest climate models had shown the planet was on the brink of an emergency. He said humanity faces repeated natural disasters from extreme weather events which would affect large areas of the planet.

As I posted a few posts back, the climate models (hindcasts) have large errors with them and the projections have their own problems as well. Hansen gives these models way too much credit and him using them to act as though we are on the brink of some imaginary emergency is fraudulent at best.

"The situation we're creating for young people and future generations is that we're handing them a climate system which is potentially out of their control," he said. "We're in an emergency: you can see what's on the horizon over the next few decades with the effects it will have on ecosystems, sea level and species extinction."

Hah, that is classic. Another Hansen prediction that will crash and burn. -PDO cycle with low sunspot cycle = cooling climate over the next couple decades.

LINK TO FULL ARTICLE

Interesting read by Mark Johnson newsnet 5.com


CLEVELAND - ADDED 3:35 pm Wednesday: References to tornado frequency by NWS Dallas Office.

I saw and heard some very disturbing things on television on Tuesday. What I SAW was live television video showing a tornado tearing through a Dallas, Texas business park. The most amazing site was seeing the twister pick up empty semi tractor-trailers and toss them hundreds of feet in the air like toys. Only to drop them, crashing to the ground in a unrecognizable mess of metal. Ah, the awesomeness of nature!

What I HEARD was even more disturbing. I watched a cable television meteorologist, a former Weather Channel met, blame yesterday's Texas tornadoes on...(drum role) climate change! Sigh. This is what she said with a straight face: "That’s kind of the climate change we are seeing. You know, extremes are kind of ruling the roost and really what we are seeing, more become the norm.”

So, let me get this straight: a tornado in Texas in April is extreme? Tuesday's small EF-2 tornado was the result of global warming/climate change/climate disruption? Really! Who'd have thunk it!

The ridiculousness continued: "This global warming is really kind of a misnomer,” the CNN Weather Anchor said. “It’s global climate change. So...severe is more severe.”

And this isn't the first time you may have heard these claims. Many media outlets, newspapers, bloggers are jumping on the "weather extremes is climate change" bandwagon.

First of all, as my grandfather used to say, "This is absolute HOGWASH!"

There is no evidence that tornadoes and severe storms are increasing in frequency or becoming stronger. Oh, it may look like tornadoes are bigger and meaner and more frequent. But, experts admit that's because of technology. Better radars now detect even the smallest twisters, which would likely have gone unreported decades ago.

Also, no self-respecting tornado can touch down anymore without being harassed by camera wielding storm chasers. That video is instantly uploaded to a TV set or computer screen near you. We see a lot more pictures of tornadoes today than we ever did in decades past. Furthermore, increases in available disaster assistance aid have encouraged more frequent reporting of smaller storms in efforts to get disaster aid.

Here are the facts: In the Dallas/Fort Worth area, data shows "Nearly 30% of all the tornadoes reported in this area have occurred during the month of April and over 30% of the EF2 and stronger tornadoes have occurred in April." On April 2, 1957, an F-3 tornado touched down in Dallas County, killing 10 people. That means, in April, in Dallas, tornadoes are common.

According to Balling & Cerveny, 2003, If you count only category F4 and F5 tornado events, "which are relatively consistently detectable and recorded, there is no trend in tornado numbers over the past 100 years."

Lets expand that out to include EF-3, EF-4, & EF-5 tornadoes over the last 60 years. Take a look at the graph above (Image 3). Strong, damaging tornadoes have actually DECREASED across the United States over the last 40 years. Note this graph even includes last year's major tornado outbreaks in Alabama, Missouri and North Carolina.

Lets add in even the reported F-2 tornadoes now: From 1970-1979, there were a total of 255 reported twisters of F-2 strength or higher. Compare that to the recent decade - from 2002 to 2011, 147 tornadoes of F-2 strength or higher were cataloged. So, again we see a larger number of moderate to strong tornadoes occurred during the 1970s, compared to the most recent decade ( Storm Prediction Center) . Big, mean tornadoes have declined, not increased!

Dr. Harold Brooks of the National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL) is a severe weather expert. In a recent seminar at Penn State University, he detailed his ongoing research about the connection between severe weather and climate change. Here's what this expert had to say:

1. The large variability from one severe weather season to another, combined with ever improving and easier ways of reporting severe weather, make it difficult to link severe weather and climate change.

2. Significant severe weather (tornadoes and hail storms) depends more on wind shear (change in direction of strong winds with height) rather than a combination of higher temperatures and high humidity. Shear also determines the intensity of hail and tornadoes in the U.S. and Europe. Big tornado years have hail storms as the dominant secondary severe weather events (as opposed to just damaging winds).

3. Climate models projecting a future warmer world with C02 doubled show an increase in heat and humidity, but a decrease in shear (a decrease in equator to pole gradient).

4. These high heat/humidity & low shear environments result in little overall change in severe thunderstorms.

And there's more. The self-appointed authority on the global warming theory, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UNIPCC), admits there is no link between an increase in severe storms

and a warming world. Here's what they say in Chapter 4, of the just-released UNIPCC Special Report on Extremes:

1) "There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change."
2) "The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornadoes"
3) "The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses" The report even tackles the issue of increased monetary losses due to bigger and more frequent storms:
"Some authors suggest that a (natural or anthropogenic) climate change signal can be found in the records of disaster losses (e.g., Mills, 2005; Höppe and Grimm, 2009), but their work is in the nature of reviews and commentary rather than empirical research."

Boom, goes the dynamite!

As far as tornadoes go, it's about warm vs. cold. For the cold, we look to La Niña. As the Climate Prediction Center shows, we have been experiencing the cooler La Niña cycle of ocean temperatures in the Pacific for the last two years. Drs. Cook and Schaefer, in 2008 found an increase in winter and springtime tornado events during cool-phase La Niña episodes.

During La Niña springs, colder air tends to dip farther south into the plains states of the US, where it meets up with warm moist air from the Gulf of Mexico. There is a large collision zone of warm and cold air during La Niña years from the Southern Plains & Southeast States north into the Ohio Valley & Great Lakes.

That includes Ohio, by the way - are you ready?

C

Read more: http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/weather/weather_news/proof-climate-change-not-causing-increase-in-tornadoes#ixzz1rW0Ju7jG

There are certainly some people (lawmakers, media, and others) making some sensationalist claims on this subject. That happens all the time with every topic you can think of, especially things dealing with medicine. One day eggs will save your life, the next day they are the leading cause of everyone killing over. That doesn't mean climate change is not important and shouldn't be taken seriously. Like everything else in this day and age people must have the ability to run all of the hype through a sensible filter and, once again, balance the evidence before them. If they don't then they'll either fall for anything or be paranoid of everything.

True, you could find some on the opposite side (skeptics) that make crazy assed statements as well. Also true that generally you have to run these statements through a filter. However when prominent people in the AGW movement are making these statements (such as a Senator or one of the pioneers in the movement Hansen) you have to take it a little more seriously because these people are actually close to the levers of power. They have a lot of influence and their thoughts carry more weight (for right or wrong).

Stovepipe wrote:There are certainly some people (lawmakers, media, and others) making some sensationalist claims on this subject. That happens all the time with every topic you can think of, especially things dealing with medicine. One day eggs will save your life, the next day they are the leading cause of everyone killing over. That doesn't mean climate change is not important and shouldn't be taken seriously. Like everything else in this day and age people must have the ability to run all of the hype through a sensible filter and, once again, balance the evidence before them. If they don't then they'll either fall for anything or be paranoid of everything.

Its a broader problem than you make it seem. Yes, we get lots of news about weird studies. But generally its a one and done type situation. Whenever bad weather occurs now, the media is attempting to fit it somehow into the climate change narrative. And the narrative sneakily changes, hence the move from "global warming" to "climate change" which is now being morphed into colder cold and warmer warm and more severe severe. Which is absolutely ridiculous. If this hadn't been treated as a political issue for the last 15 years, I think people would be more trusting of scientific findings, but from my experience, policy makers are using the fact that the globe is warming due to human behavior to exert more control over the populace. The money trough for scientists studying the effects of climate change on x absolutely dwarf any private money coming from oil companies to do "opposition research". This is why you are seeing a branding of those who are skeptical as "deniers" ... if this were about science, and folks were confident in the results of their studies, not to mention the media support for their position, there would be no need to try to label and defame anyone who thinks that maybe, just maybe, our latest science is missing something. Whether it be the urban heat island effect, the sun, PDO/AMO cycles, the core of the earth, etc... if folks were confident in their determination that this is all about CO2, I don't see the reason for going after folks who are offering other hypothesises. Ad homenim attacks are the last result for someone who either can't defend their position, or is interested in something other than the truth. That's the biggest reason I'm a skeptic, is because I see this as defending a political agenda, and consequentially a cash cow for scientists, vs really trying to understand what's going on with climate.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we do end up with more tornados, and more violent ones in the near future, not due to CO2 and AGW, but because of the PDO, and eventually AMO shifts bringing more polar air into the states, especially since ocean temperatures have risen for the last twenty years. Warmer gulf, plus colder air from canada, well, you get the picture.

I'm still waiting on all the hurricanes that Al Gore, and others in the AGW media/public scientists promised after Hurricane Katrina. Its been pretty quiet since 2005.

jmundie wrote:

Stovepipe wrote:There are certainly some people (lawmakers, media, and others) making some sensationalist claims on this subject. That happens all the time with every topic you can think of, especially things dealing with medicine. One day eggs will save your life, the next day they are the leading cause of everyone killing over. That doesn't mean climate change is not important and shouldn't be taken seriously. Like everything else in this day and age people must have the ability to run all of the hype through a sensible filter and, once again, balance the evidence before them. If they don't then they'll either fall for anything or be paranoid of everything.

Its a broader problem than you make it seem. Yes, we get lots of news about weird studies. But generally its a one and done type situation. Whenever bad weather occurs now, the media is attempting to fit it somehow into the climate change narrative. And the narrative sneakily changes, hence the move from "global warming" to "climate change" which is now being morphed into colder cold and warmer warm and more severe severe. Which is absolutely ridiculous. If this hadn't been treated as a political issue for the last 15 years, I think people would be more trusting of scientific findings, but from my experience, policy makers are using the fact that the globe is warming due to human behavior to exert more control over the populace. The money trough for scientists studying the effects of climate change on x absolutely dwarf any private money coming from oil companies to do "opposition research". This is why you are seeing a branding of those who are skeptical as "deniers" ... if this were about science, and folks were confident in the results of their studies, not to mention the media support for their position, there would be no need to try to label and defame anyone who thinks that maybe, just maybe, our latest science is missing something. Whether it be the urban heat island effect, the sun, PDO/AMO cycles, the core of the earth, etc... if folks were confident in their determination that this is all about CO2, I don't see the reason for going after folks who are offering other hypothesises. Ad homenim attacks are the last result for someone who either can't defend their position, or is interested in something other than the truth. That's the biggest reason I'm a skeptic, is because I see this as defending a political agenda, and consequentially a cash cow for scientists, vs really trying to understand what's going on with climate.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we do end up with more tornados, and more violent ones in the near future, not due to CO2 and AGW, but because of the PDO, and eventually AMO shifts bringing more polar air into the states, especially since ocean temperatures have risen for the last twenty years. Warmer gulf, plus colder air from canada, well, you get the picture.

I'm still waiting on all the hurricanes that Al Gore, and others in the AGW media/public scientists promised after Hurricane Katrina. Its been pretty quiet since 2005.

Regarding the bolded statements. It's always been about "climate change" regardless of media labels. While I'm not denying that some people do have agendas and that there is hype involved, there is some science to support the "more extremes, hot and cold with the overall trend being warmer" statements. Which could also mean more severe weather. It's not like they just made that bit up. I don't however believe there is a solid case at the moment for a substantial increase in hurricanes and tornadoes as the media is clamoring about, at least on the short term. Some studies have suggested such things but as far as I know that part isn't mainstream science yet.

What are some of your reasons for why this is a ploy by the powers that be to exert control over the populace? Not disputing it, just curious what leads you to believe that. Most of the sensible policy suggestions I've read about would largely be beneficial to societies as a whole even regardless of "global warming". Now of course, the crazy people that won't allow the poor old woman to get her surgeries due to her having a larger carbon foot print are a ridiculous exception.

Finally, you are suggesting that this is a cash cow for scientists. How so? What scientists are getting rich off this? I've seen this mentioned a number of times but I'm scratching my head as to where the assertion is coming from. Again, not saying you are wrong I'm just looking for some reasoning.

Scientists have to get grants to do research. Since AGW has become the issue it has, the easiest way toget a grant for continued research is to somehow associate it with global warming.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/grantsmanshipand_the_global_wa.html

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/01/why-most-published-research-findings-are-false/

And I never said that scientists are "getting rich" but are you denying that their livelihood is directly effected by whether or not they get research dollars?

Some in the AGW industry have gotten wealthy... Al Gore created a carbon Credit company, made a movie, and got insane amounts for speaking fees.

Undoubtably there are others... Wall street stands to do very well if cap and trade were to pass... Carbon derivatives would be just as corrupt as credit default swaps, and wall street will skim off the trading of these instruments just like they have others.

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/4731

jmundie wrote:Scientists have to get grants to do research. Since AGW has become the issue it has, the easiest way toget a grant for continued research is to somehow associate it with global warming.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/grantsmanshipand_the_global_wa.html

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/01/why-most-published-research-findings-are-false/

And I never said that scientists are "getting rich" but are you denying that their livelihood is directly effected by whether or not they get research dollars?

Some in the AGW industry have gotten wealthy... Al Gore created a carbon Credit company, made a movie, and got insane amounts for speaking fees.

Undoubtably there are others... Wall street stands to do very well if cap and trade were to pass... Carbon derivatives would be just as corrupt as credit default swaps, and wall street will skim off the trading of these instruments just like they have others.

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/4731

I was responding to your statement:

That's the biggest reason I'm a skeptic, is because I see this as defending a political agenda, and consequentially a cash cow for scientists, vs really trying to understand what's going on with climate.

Most scientists aren't in it for the money. Compared to many other fields they do not make that much money. Getting research funding only helps to secure their job. So I don't see in any way how this is a "cash cow" for scientists. I also don't see, for the large majority of climate scientists, how getting research funding would clash with them "trying to understand what's going on with the climate". A few high profile individuals profiting from it doesn't really say anything about the bigger picture of climate research and I'm surprised to hear that is the biggest reason you are a skeptic.