Freaky Weather

[+susieice]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is expected to release it's report on global warming and climate change in the next few weeks after a meeting in Uganda. An increase in strong unusual storms is to be expected according to their findings. Not everything seems to be blamed to global warming. They predict some areas that are now inhabited could become pretty intolerable.

http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-panel-says-wild-weather-worsens-084540799.html

[ghost-mark]

Great article, thanks for sharing!

It does seem we are having some kind of natural disaster every few weeks now. Will be interesting to see what the report says when it is released.

[ohoake]

mmm... so many of these 'freaky weather' occurrences are cyclical. Their the biggest snowstorm in 50 years or biggest flood in 50 years etc.

I'm not saying that there aren't anomalies, however its seems as though the planet is a influenced more by the Sun and its plasma sunspots more than it is from pesky human industry and ecosystem eradication. Nature has done a better job at destroying ecosystems than we will ever do.

let's not forget that we haven't had a cataclysmic event like the swift end to the last Ice Age (where the ocean levels rose some 300 M in some places) for over 10,000 years.

[Guest]

mmm... so many of these 'freaky weather' occurrences are cyclical. Their the biggest snowstorm in 50 years or biggest flood in 50 years etc.

I'm not saying that there aren't anomalies, however its seems as though the planet is a influenced more by the Sun and its plasma sunspots more than it is from pesky human industry and ecosystem eradication. Nature has done a better job at destroying ecosystems than we will ever do.

let's not forget that we haven't had a cataclysmic event like the swift end to the last Ice Age (where the ocean levels rose some 300 M in some places) for over 10,000 years.

Statistically freak weather events have risen in tandem with temperatures (which do not relate to sun spots). Mainly we are seeing more torrential rain causing more flooding.

When you find that Sun spot freak weather correlation feel free to publish it - you will be guaranteed the Nobel prize

The very concept bandied about of adapting to these events is pure lunacy. The price tags on each one runs into billions and will inevitably lead to a sever contraction of countries economies as more and more resources have to be diverted to the clear up.

Br Cornelius

Edited November 2, 2011 by Guest

[Von Bismarck]

The new report will be interesting. Let's hope they haven't made any embarrassing mistakes, like we see over and over with their reports.

No studies have specifically tied global warming to the drought, but it is consistent with computer models that indicate current climate trends will worsen existing droughts, Meehl said

There's an 80 percent chance that the killer Russian heat wave of 2010 wouldn't have happened without the added push of global warming

Science pushed aside and politics in the game agian.

The report, which needs approval by diplomats at the mid-November meeting

Again that's very scientific.

The report does say scientists are "virtually certain" 99 percent that the world will have more extreme spells of heat and fewer of cold. Heat waves could peak as much as 5 degrees hotter by mid-century and even 9 degrees hotter by the end of the century.

i'll be looking forward to that.

The report said hurricanes and other tropical cyclones — like 2005's Katrina — are likely to get stronger in wind speed, but won't increase in number and may actually decrease.

Finally.

And global warming isn't the sole villain in future climate disasters, the climate report says. An even bigger problem will be the number of people — especially the poor — who live in harm's way.

Edited November 2, 2011 by BFB

[Ashotep]

Hotter summers, less food, more people, mass starvation.

[Professor Buzzkill]

I love how they quote figures of deaths from heat waves and completely ignore the figure of deaths from cold spells. It's not mentioned because the latter figure happens to be over 10 times the previous but doesn't fit into the AGW agenda.

Also, food supplies are damaged alot more in cold spells then heatwaves...

[Guest]

I love how they quote figures of deaths from heat waves and completely ignore the figure of deaths from cold spells. It's not mentioned because the latter figure happens to be over 10 times the previous but doesn't fit into the AGW agenda.

Also, food supplies are damaged alot more in cold spells then heatwaves...

Cold spells not part of climate change .... you could have fooled me.

Br Cornelius

[Von Bismarck]

Cold spells not part of climate change .... you could have fooled me.

Br Cornelius

What are you talking about!? Cold spells are not a part of the climate change?

[Paracelse]

Cold spells not part of climate change .... you could have fooled me.

Br Cornelius

Prof was talking about climate warming not climate changes... there is a difference ... please re-read.

[Von Bismarck]

Prof was talking about climate warming not climate changes... there is a difference ... please re-read.

Doesn't make any difference if he misread it. Saying the AO and the NAO is not part of the climate change process or global warming process is wrong.

[Guest]

Prof was talking about climate warming not climate changes... there is a difference ... please re-read.

If you want to argue Global warming and then use local weather as an example - it shows that fundamentally you haven't got a clue.

Br Cornelius

[Paracelse]

If you want to argue Global warming and then use local weather as an example - it shows that fundamentally you haven't got a clue.

Br Cornelius

Perhaps I have better clue than you do, just a matter of opinion I guess

[Guest]

Perhaps I have better clue than you do, just a matter of opinion I guess

The evidence is in your words - no argument.

Br Cornelius

[Professor Buzzkill]

If you want to argue Global warming and then use local weather as an example - it shows that fundamentally you haven't got a clue.

Br Cornelius

Such as local heat waves? Like the one in Mexico or Russia that were used as evidence of global warming by the IPCC because people died.

I love how you think that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow retarded. I suppose its a miracle that we remember to breathe in and out....

I have a feeling somehow I am fundamentally wrong here... im sure BR will point it out to me

Edited November 8, 2011 by Professor Buzzkill

[rashore]

I can't speak for globally, but I can speak for locally that the weather this year has been abnormal.

When we moved in Feb, we thought all would be well. Then there were power outages, so we got a generator. Then there were more outages. When speaking with the locals, kind of making comment of "gee, wish we would have known about the frequency of outages from the weather" the response has been every time, "This isn't normal. Usually we need a generator maybe once a year, but not normally 10-15 times over a few months."

But on the bright side, yard crews are making a killing cleaning up yard debris and whacking up fallen trees, and the local power and cable folks have been raking in the OT fixing stuff

[Guest]

Such as local heat waves? Like the one in Mexico or Russia that were used as evidence of global warming by the IPCC because people died.

I love how you think that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow retarded. I suppose its a miracle that we remember to breathe in and out....

I have a feeling somehow I am fundamentally wrong here... im sure BR will point it out to me

Global warming is a measure of the mean increase in temperature across the globe.

Climate change is a measure of the effects of that which can be both local heat waves and local cooling effects. Sighting local cooling effects as evidence for no AGW shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what is happening. Local cooling and local warming could be just coincidence, they become proof of Global warming only if they form a trend of increasing frequency. that can be increasing frequency of local cooling as well as warming. They both remain proof of AGW whilstever the Global mean temperature continues to rise or even remains stably high.

Almost no scientist will stick their neck out and attribute a particular cooling/warming event to AGW - they will wait until the trend emerges. Personally I would not be so cautious as there is plenty of evidence for increasing trends of both anomalous warming events and cooling events for the jury to have made their decision. I take my evidence from statistics produced by Insurance companies who have a vested interest in making accurate predictions of freak weather.

Br Cornelius

Edited November 8, 2011 by Guest

[Von Bismarck]

I have a feeling somehow I am fundamentally wrong here... im sure BR will point it out to me

Cold spells are a part of the CC and the GW process dispite what GW theory you believe. But since we have no substantial evidence contributing increased CO2 to the strengthening of the polar vortex, we can't say AGW causes droughts or cold spells. A weak polar vortex would allow cold air to plunge down to North America, Europe, and Asia causing cold spells. When the vortex is positive it would lock cold air in place causing most of the northern hemisphere to warm. So tell Br that since the OA is a internally generated climate variability its wrong to say the polar vortex has no impact on GW.

[iamdee1]

We had thundersnow last winter complete with lightening that left over 10 inches of snow. Never saw anything like that in my near 50 years and I am a native here in Illinois. My cousin got it in Missouri too.

We have no lakes close to us and it was the middle of winter so the water around us would not have been warm enough to cause it. I think the chances of us having one is pretty rare.

I knew I would probably never see anything like that again so I stayed up all night to watch and listen to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thundersnow

Edited November 9, 2011 by iamdee1

[Little Fish]

Mainly we are seeing more torrential rain causing more flooding.

here is what the USGS says:

"In none of the four regions defined in this study is there strong statistical evidence for flood magnitudes increasing with increasing GMCO2 (global mean carbon dioxide concentration)"

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02626667.2011.621895

so, no link between co2 and flooding.

[Guest]

here is what the USGS says:

"In none of the four regions defined in this study is there strong statistical evidence for flood magnitudes increasing with increasing GMCO2 (global mean carbon dioxide concentration)"

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02626667.2011.621895

so, no link between co2 and flooding.

A study of America - which in case you forgot is just a small fraction of the Globe. There are specific reasons why America might see reduced precipitation whilst Europe and Asia saw increases.

Extreme precipitation event which can lead to flooding have increased in Europe.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=extreme%20precipitation%20events%20in%20europe&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net%2F9%2F441%2F2009%2Fnhess-9-441-2009.pdf&ei=35O7ToD3Nc6GhQfn-tnIBw&usg=AFQjCNGH-RW187bMu2nyiG1MNbFnDk4Ddw&cad=rja

And on a global basis the extreme precipitation and snow is increasing;

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2011/0216/Extreme-rain-and-snow-events-linked-to-global-warming-study-finds

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=extreme%20global%20precipitation&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CFoQFjAH&url=ftp%3A%2F%2Fstarfish.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca%2Fpub%2Focean%2FCCS-WG_References%2FNewSinceReport%2FLiu%2520et%2520al%2520Temperature%2520dependence%2520of%2520global%2520precip%2520extremes%25202009GL040218.pdf&ei=apW7Tu_WNJG2hAeK_6CwBw&usg=AFQjCNFyJWRECgRSMbKXh_-b4BgD9oZoTQ&cad=rja

Can I ask you to stop cherry picking single studies which run counter to the general evidence, it doesn't do any favours to your argument.

Br Cornelius

Edited November 10, 2011 by Guest

[Von Bismarck]

A study of America - which in case you forgot is just a small fraction of the Globe. There are specific reasons why America might see reduced precipitation whilst Europe and Asia saw increases.

Extreme precipitation event which can lead to flooding have increased in Europe.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=extreme%20precipitation%20events%20in%20europe&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net%2F9%2F441%2F2009%2Fnhess-9-441-2009.pdf&ei=35O7ToD3Nc6GhQfn-tnIBw&usg=AFQjCNGH-RW187bMu2nyiG1MNbFnDk4Ddw&cad=rja

And on a global basis the extreme precipitation and snow is increasing;

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2011/0216/Extreme-rain-and-snow-events-linked-to-global-warming-study-finds

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=extreme%20global%20precipitation&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CFoQFjAH&url=ftp%3A%2F%2Fstarfish.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca%2Fpub%2Focean%2FCCS-WG_References%2FNewSinceReport%2FLiu%2520et%2520al%2520Temperature%2520dependence%2520of%2520global%2520precip%2520extremes%25202009GL040218.pdf&ei=apW7Tu_WNJG2hAeK_6CwBw&usg=AFQjCNFyJWRECgRSMbKXh_-b4BgD9oZoTQ&cad=rja

Can I ask you to stop cherry picking single studies which run counter to the general evidence, it doesn't do any favours to your argument.

Br Cornelius

Hmm aren't you cherry picking yourself? Which of studies provided by you shows a global trend?

[Guest]

Hmm aren't you cherry picking yourself? Which of studies provided by you shows a global trend?

Unfortunately it is difficult to access Nature without a subscription, however the Christian Monitor article I linked to shows a Nature paper which demonstrates the Global trend.

I think the new IPCC report will provide a well laid out case for a range of trends within Global weather, which is what this thread started with.

Br Cornelius

[Von Bismarck]

Unfortunately it is difficult to access Nature without a subscription, however the Christian Monitor article I linked to shows a Nature paper which demonstrates the Global trend.

I think the new IPCC report will provide a well laid out case for a range of trends within Global weather, which is what this thread started with.

Br Cornelius

Found the study and indeed its global.

http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/~jclub/journalclub_files/MinPrecipExt.pdf

But as written in your link, i find the models problematic. The outcome is not what it should be. Basically this study hardly shows a link between AGW and heavy precipitation events. If anything it shows we can't find a link based on computer models.

[Little Fish]

Found the study and indeed its global.

you sure about that?

pretty sure it says northern hemisphere only, and then only a part of only the areas where there is available data.

There are specific reasons why America might see reduced precipitation whilst Europe and Asia saw increases.

what reasons might they be? weren't you saying some time ago that the flooding in the US was due to AGW, I can get your quotes if you want, now you are saying that no flooding in the US is due to AGW?