Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Global warming at a standstill


  • Please log in to reply
182 replies to this topic

#136    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 14 January 2013 - 12:20 AM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 13 January 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:

It doesn't amount to anything like the same thing - it is impossible to attribute any single event to global warming, but the probability of an extreme event is going up progressively - that is established statistical fact as I have demonstrated.

By the way - extreme snow events are a particular case of extreme precipitation events - so yes they are caused by climate change.



As to your last comment - I have shown the trends in the extreme precipitation events by siting scientific papers showing statistically significant trends, I have also shown abundantly that records are been broken on an increasingly frequent basis.

A drought is a very specific event over which a thresh-hold has to be crossed in the lack of rainfall - the periods and intensities of heatwaves are increasing by a statistically significant trend. The two things are not the same thing.

The IPCC obviously didn't get your note saying that they said there has been no increase in extreme weather - since they have just released a report on preparedness for extreme events showing the trends upwards;




http://www.ipcc-wg2....X-All_FINAL.pdf

You really need to educate yourself about the basics.

Br Cornelius
Posted Image

quotes from the SREX report, on trends:

"There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change"

"The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados"

"The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses"

"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."

http://rogerpielkejr...asters-and.html


#137    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,791 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 14 January 2013 - 08:40 AM

Spin it how you want Little Fish, this is what they actually say about the trends. I have highlighted the parts which support my statement that extreme precipitation events have an upward trend;

Quote

There is evidence from observations gathered since 1950 of change in some extremes. It is very likely that
there has been an overall decrease in the number of cold days and nights, and an overall increase in the number of
warm days and nights, at the global scale, that is, for most land areas with sufficient data. It is likely that these changes
have also occurred at the continental scale in North America, Europe, and Australia. There is medium confidence of a
warming trend in daily temperature extremes in much of Asia. Confidence in observed trends in daily temperature
extremes in Africa and South America generally varies from low to medium depending on the region. Globally, in many
(but not all) regions with sufficient data there is medium confidence that the length or number of warm spells or heat
waves has increased since the middle of the 20th century. It is likely that there have been statistically significant
increases in the number of heavy precipitation events (e.g., 95th percentile) in more regions than there have been
statistically significant decreases, but there are strong regional and subregional variations in the trends. There is
low confidence that any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust,
after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. It is likely that there has been a poleward shift in the
main Northern and Southern Hemisphere extratropical storm tracks.

........


There is evidence that some extremes have changed as a result of anthropogenic influences, including
increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. It is likely that anthropogenic influences have led
to warming of extreme daily minimum and maximum temperatures at the global scale. There is medium confidence
that anthropogenic influences have contributed to intensification of extreme precipitation at the global scale.



http://www.ipcc-wg2....X-All_FINAL.pdf

In all cases of low confidence it is because historic data is inadequate to draw those conclusions - not because the trends do not exist. Confidence of trends in  high quality data areas is consistently high.
The attribution of financial losses is similarly plagued by in adequate study but the number of natural disasters (weather related) recorded by the insurance industry has doubled in  the last 20years, the trend in none weather related natural disasters shows no upward trend.  

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 14 January 2013 - 08:49 AM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#138    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,791 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 14 January 2013 - 11:17 AM

Frankly I am more than a little bored showing the empircial evidence that extreme weather events are becoming more frequent as a consequence of climate change. Selectively misquoting the IPCC isn't helping your case Little Fish.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 14 January 2013 - 11:22 AM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#139    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 14 January 2013 - 11:30 AM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 14 January 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

Spin it how you want Little Fish, this is what they actually say about the trends. I have highlighted the parts which support my statement that extreme precipitation events have an upward trend;

"There is evidence from observations gathered since 1950 of change in some extremes. It is very likely that there has been an overall decrease in the number of cold days and nights, and an overall increase in the number of warm days and nights, at the global scale"

how much did we pay for that genius?
so the world has warmed, show me someone who claims the world has not been warming since the little ice age.

"Globally, in many (but not all) regions with sufficient data there is medium confidence that the length or number of warm spells or heat waves has increased since the middle of the 20th century. It is likely that there have been statistically significant increases in the number of heavy precipitation events (e.g., 95th percentile) in more regions than there have been statistically significant decreases, but there are strong regional and subregional variations in the trends"
why is this bad? plants and animals love rain and warmth, that's why they tend to flourish in wet and warm places and flounder in dry and cold areas.
"likely", meaning they are not sure, it doesn't sound empirical, the satellite record shows global precipitation has decreased since 1979. the only trend I'm seeing is catastrophism decreasing.

"There is medium confidence that anthropogenic influences have contributed to intensification of extreme precipitation at the global scale"
based on flawed computer models no doubt.

Quote

In all cases of low confidence it is because historic data is inadequate to draw those conclusions - not because the trends do not exist.
no evidence is not evidence.

Quote

Confidence of trends in  high quality data areas is consistently high.
The attribution of financial losses is similarly plagued by in adequate study but the number of natural disasters (weather related) recorded by the insurance industry has doubled in  the last 20years, the trend in none weather related natural disasters shows no upward trend.  

Br Cornelius
insurance claiming has become an industry unto itself in recent times, higher claims don't mean more damage, it just means more claims.
the world has been warming since the little ice age, warming would be expected to increase evaporation so its logical to expect that rainfall has increased in a warming world, but the global satellite measurements have shown rainfall has decreased globally since 1979 perhaps because in a warming world the atmosphere holds more moisture. "extreme event"- catastrophy has been downgraded into a nebulous phrase. all this however overlooks the central question of attribution of cause, to quote pielke, "What about scientists who do not dispute the "importance of global warming" but can't find the signal in the extremes that they study?"


#140    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,791 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 14 January 2013 - 11:31 AM

The Met office says;

Quote

Perhaps the most troubling statistic showed that extreme rainfall, classed as the sort of heavy downpour that occurs once every 100 days on average, is now occurring about once every 70 days, making floods a more frequent phenomenon. The Met Office said the long-term trend towards wetter weather is likely to continue as global air temperatures rise.
Professor Julia Slingo, chief scientist at the Met Office, said: “The trend towards more extreme rainfall events is one we are seeing around the world, in countries such as India and China, and now potentially here in the UK.
http://www.telegraph...treme-rain.html


Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 14 January 2013 - 11:37 AM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#141    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,791 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 14 January 2013 - 11:36 AM

Little Fish - low confidence is a statistical term which accounts for the inadequacies in data. Where data is strong there is high confidence that there are clear trends in extreme weather events  - that is clearly what the IPCC is stating. Only when they attempt to bring in all data to make a statement about global trends does the confidence fall due to the weakness of some of the data. They clearly and repeatedly state that there are strong upward and downward trends in extreme weather events in areas of good data, and say the balance is towards more extreme precipitation events.

The satellite data accounts for 30yrs of rainfall - the surface instrumental data in well monitored areas goes back between 100 and 200 years, this is the main data on which trends are calculated. Fixating on the satellite record which is only just statistically significant for calculating any trend misses the wealth of evidence that is out there.
This picture clearly shows whats going on and also why overall global confidence is low;

Posted Image

Remember also that they clearly state that this is just the start of emerging trends with the main shifts to extreme weather events occurring towards the end of the century - that not very reassuring to those recovering from the last two years rash of flooding events across the globe.

If pielke isn't seeing these trends he aint looking hard enough because they are obvious to every one else.

Try understanding what you have actually read.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 14 January 2013 - 12:22 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#142    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,791 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 14 January 2013 - 11:54 AM

If you are not prepared to read and assimilate the scientific papers and government agency reports analyzing regional weather trends you are frankly wasting my time.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#143    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,740 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 14 January 2013 - 03:23 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 13 January 2013 - 08:41 PM, said:

global warming if anything results in more moisture released from the oceans, which means more rain which means more soil moisture which is what has been measured - deserts are the result of dry conditions, not warming. deserts are decreasing globally.
The Town of Glencoe, less than fifteen miles from where I sit, will run out of water by late February.  There has been no appreciable rain since last spring.  Three 5000-gallon trucks are making five round trips a day trying to fend off the problem.  Glencoe is only one of several dozen small towns in this area that are about to exhaust their reservoirs.  This has never happened before.

Global warming will have different effects in different places.  While the net effect will be more rainfall, in general, wet places will get wetter while dry ones get dryer.  Oklahoma is getting dryer.  That extra water is going where it isn't needed.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#144    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 14 January 2013 - 03:50 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 14 January 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

The Town of Glencoe, less than fifteen miles from where I sit, will run out of water by late February.  There has been no appreciable rain since last spring.  Three 5000-gallon trucks are making five round trips a day trying to fend off the problem.  Glencoe is only one of several dozen small towns in this area that are about to exhaust their reservoirs.  This has never happened before.

Global warming will have different effects in different places.  While the net effect will be more rainfall, in general, wet places will get wetter while dry ones get dryer.  Oklahoma is getting dryer.  That extra water is going where it isn't needed.
Doug
you can't be saying that global droughts are increasing because glencoe had a drought?

ipcc draft ar5 - "The current assessment does not support the AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in droughts"
no amount of woe and flagellation will change the above statement.


#145    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,791 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 14 January 2013 - 04:27 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 14 January 2013 - 03:50 PM, said:

you can't be saying that global droughts are increasing because glencoe had a drought?

ipcc draft ar5 - "The current assessment does not support the AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in droughts"
no amount of woe and flagellation will change the above statement.

Try assimilating the bits that matter, Doug specifically addressed your comment before you made it;

Quote

Global warming will have different effects in different places.  While the net effect will be more rainfall, in general, wet places will get wetter while dry ones get dryer.  Oklahoma is getting dryer.  That extra water is going where it isn't needed.

There is reason to believe that the Lower states of the USA will experience disproportionate rises in drought occurrence which are not revealed by the analysis used by the IPCC for the AR5;

Quote

Increasing drought under global warming in observations and models

Aiguo Dai

Historical records of precipitation, streamflow and drought indices all show increased aridity since 1950 over many land areas1, 2. Analyses of model-simulated soil moisture3, 4, drought indices1, 5, 6 and precipitation-minus-evaporation7 suggest increased risk of drought in the twenty-first century. There are, however, large differences in the observed and model-simulated drying patterns1, 2, 6. Reconciling these differences is necessary before the model predictions can be trusted. Previous studies8, 9, 10, 11, 12 show that changes in sea surface temperatures have large influences on land precipitation and the inability of the coupled models to reproduce many observed regional precipitation changes is linked to the lack of the observed, largely natural change patterns in sea surface temperatures in coupled model simulations13. Here I show that the models reproduce not only the influence of El Niño-Southern Oscillation on drought over land, but also the observed global mean aridity trend from 1923 to 2010. Regional differences in observed and model-simulated aridity changes result mainly from natural variations in tropical sea surface temperatures that are often not captured by the coupled models. The unforced natural variations vary among model runs owing to different initial conditions and thus are irreproducible. I conclude that the observed global aridity changes up to 2010 are consistent with model predictions, which suggest severe and widespread droughts in the next 30–90 years over many land areas resulting from either decreased precipitation and/or increased evaporation.
http://www.nature.co...633.html#/ref18

Here is the conclusion of one of the studies on which the IPCC report will be drawn;

Quote

In summary, our results emphasise the large uncertainty in the quantification and
projection of drought on the regional scale. However, the large uncertainty range must
not be mistaken for low drought risk, since projections for all regions include the
possibility of increasing drought, even in cases where the average projections point
towards wetter conditions.
This is particularly critical as some of these regions are vital
for global food production.

http://www.hydrol-ea...-2012-print.pdf

The trend in drought indeed seems to be weak at present but again this is largely a consequence of historic data inadequacies. Its not so much that they don't expect changes in drough frequency and intensity (since the models predict them), its more a case that they do not feel confident in predicting them with any certainty.
Not so for extreme precipitation events though.


Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 14 January 2013 - 05:08 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#146    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 14 January 2013 - 04:33 PM

I was thinking about Global Warming the past couple days..I came up with these three tidbits of info..

1: Bejing China pollution off the index

2. Warmest year in USA

3. Oregon usually considered a rainforest zone along with Washington...No rain yet and February. Now we often get Indian summers but those end in Late October at the latest not Jan/Feb


#147    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,740 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 14 January 2013 - 04:58 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 14 January 2013 - 03:50 PM, said:

you can't be saying that global droughts are increasing because glencoe had a drought?
This time, try reading the post:  "Global warming will have different effects in different places."

You got it backwards.  Glencoe (In fact, all of Oklahoma.) is in a drought because climate appears to have changed.  I say "appears" because we don't yet have the requisite 30 years of data.  But, back to 1996, weather does seem to be different than before 1977.  It has been noticeable in this area since 2008.

Quote

ipcc draft ar5 - "The current assessment does not support the AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in droughts"
no amount of woe and flagellation will change the above statement.
Again, read the post.  A downpour over the ocean means nothing at all to land-based life forms (I assume you are one.), but it is averaged into the precip figures.  One area can receive a lot less precip (like Oklahoma) while the world as a whole is receiving more.  Apparently, no amount of anything is going to get the idea through to you.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#148    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,740 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 16 January 2013 - 07:23 PM

Greetings All:
NCDC has released its temperature summaries, updated to December 31st.

The hottest year on the record, so far, since 1880 was 2010 with a temperature of 0.66 degrees C. above the 1951-1980 average.  Here are the hottest 15.

1.  2010:  +0.66
2.  2005:  +0.65
3.  2007:  +0.62
4.  1998:  +0.61
5.  2002:  +0.60
6.  2009:  +0.59
7.  2006:  +0.59
8.  2003:  +0.59
9.  2012:  +0.56
10.  2011:  +0.54
11.  2004:  +0.52
12.  2001:  +0.52
13.  2008:  +0.49
14.  1997:  +0.45
15.  1995:  +0.42

Note that the much-maligned high temp of 1998 has been beaten three times.  2012 turned out to be about 0.04 degrees cooler than I had predicted.  Twelve out of the warmest thirteen years have occurred since 2000.

Just for entertainment, I decided to look up the coldest years on record.  They are:

1.  1909:  -0.47
2.  1910:  -0.46
3.  1917:  -0.44
4.  1911:  -0.44
5.  1908:  -0.43
6.  1903:  -0.43
7.  1907:  -0.42
8.  1912:  -0.41
9.  1913:  -0.39
10.  1893:  -0.36
11.  1916:  -0.36
12.  1980:  -0.33
13.  1894:  -0.33
14.  1887:  -0.32
15:  1892:  -0.32
16.  1898:  -0.32
17.  1918:  -0.32
18.  1929:  -0.32

Lets see what happens in 2013.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#149    Zaphod222

Zaphod222

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,594 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tokyo

  • When the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers.
    (Oscar Wilde)

Posted 16 January 2013 - 11:36 PM

Since global warming is fundamentally a taxation and grant scheme, it certainly is not at standstill. If the figures do not match the warmers` fiction, they´ll adjust them.


#150    socrates.junior

socrates.junior

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,183 posts
  • Joined:23 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • Nothing is worse than active ignorance. - Goethe

Posted 17 January 2013 - 12:48 AM

What is important about the average temperature from 51-80? Why is that the baseline? I'm curious.

I love argument, I love debate. I don't expect anyone to just sit there and agree with me, that's not their job. -Margaret Thatcher




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users