Plesse.. GreggK... get a grip. In some things you are understandable, but in others you have "gone off the deep end". Please do a little study first.

extreme weather is a cop out for "we just don't know". Every year there has been highs and lows, precipitation and lack of precipitation records set for everywhere on earth. There is such a thing as local climate. It just gets reported more often now so people assume it is because the world is going to end.

Also, there is no scientific data that suggests extreme weather is increasing. Things are pretty plain and boring around the ol extreme weather front.

I am not so sure a "little" is the correct word to use there.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/socasp/data/tables2.html

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severe...r/extremes.html

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/techrpt...2/tr2000-02.pdf

http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/13227.html

http://www.ri.net/schools/Glocester/FMS/LAB/wildweather.html

http://www.smhi.se/cmp/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=...=27715&l=en

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/int...3oct02rain.html

http://idw-online.de/pages/en/news?id=28732

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publicat..._fact_sheet.pdf

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publicat...echsel_2004.pdf

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/sampleimages.html

I'm not anywhere near Australia. But, from looking at some statistics, and current conditions, I would say that there are some relatively colder daily temps, going back about twenty years. This is just a minor point I'm attempting to make. I don't have time to format it all or give links, because it would not be much fun to wade through.

However, I would side with the main idea that too little precipitation for the good of the population seems to be the main concern of Australia, rather than "inconveniently cold" winters.

Camlax does make a salient point about jumping to a sweeping generality about weather or climate. On this topic, if a poster can conveniently provide a point or counter-point with data, that helps.

One other thing- I see all those hurricane pictures on those links, in the previous post. Which hurricane is explained by a shift in climate? (and yes, I know that person is trying to make some statement about extremes of climate or sudden climate changes).

While I'm at it, hurricanes are actually beneficial to phytoplankton populations (but obviously, not to vulnerable manmade structures or trees or crops, etc).

edit- I do not want to minimize anything about the conditions that any Australians may find themselves facing, in terms of rainfall or water supplies.

maybe we dont have to worry about global warming anymore cause this thing might break and cause an "event horizon" type issue lol

Your first link here shows there is an increase in total money damages done once adjusted to 1995 levels, it does not show an increase in deaths, graph the information then draw a best fit line if you must. And an increase in money is hardly surprising, considering coastal areas and cities are much larger than in the early half of the century.



A statment that says the UK had a wild june, Not sure of your point. I thought we went over there are hundreds, even thousands of records everywhere every year.



Now this website is interesting since I have spent lots of time here and at its links. I think all you have read is extreme weather.
Since you cant use HTML tags I cant insert the table so you will have to click on the link the old fashion way. This table is NOAA's hurricane data, strikes by decade. What you will notice is no increase in hurricanes. NOAA National Hurrican Center

Sorry I must include this as well. Here is the predictions for 2007 Atlantic hurricane season.
Named Storms (NS) (9.6)=17
Named Storm Days (NSD) (49.1)=85
Hurricanes (H) (5.9)=9
Hurricane Days (HD) (24.5)=40
Intense Hurricanes (IH) (2.3)=5
Intense Hurricane Days (IHD) (5.0)=11
Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) (96.2)=170
Net Tropical Cyclone Activity (NTC) (100%)=185

The numbers in ( ) are averages from 1950-2000.

For the record we are a third of the way through the 2007 hurricane season and we have had 2 named storms and 0 hurricanes. Sure does give hope for long term climate predictions!


So we are clear this is not a hurricane only anomaly here is some info on tornadoes, again from NOAA.


Yea, some increase all right.



Again, not sure why you post this. I think lack of extreme weather increase is clearly evidence by the very first graph. Actual damage amounts and Adjusted to 1998 shows no increase, draw a best fit line if you need too.

I think the article also sums up the whole population thing well.





It says

Not sure how that supports increasing extreme weather, were you agreeing with me that extreme weather is not increasing?



Did you just Google 'extreme weather'? This site has nothing to do with increasing extreme weather, just shows how to stay safe.




So because they predict more severe weather we are supposed to believe it? We cannot predict 'extreme weather' a year in advance, and we are supposed to believe it is done with accuracy for 100 years from now? That is laughable, 2006's hurricanes predictions were off by 66%, you know what 66% means? You are just guessing, there is no accuracy or science too it.

I think I have it figured out, I think you are just headline searching. Here I'll help ya.

Go here Historic station data for strong rainfall, etc. Compile graphs then note down how there is no extreme increase, again use best fit lines to aid in visualization if you must. Then return here and provide us retracting statement about lack of increase in extreme weather.

or

Go here and create an account and claim to be a pilot. They will compile the data for you, then repeat above steps about noting no increase in extreme weather and report to us here.




Sorry I dont read Dutch or German or whatever language it is, though I am going to extrapolate the current trend in your links and assume this, like the others, shows no increase.




Again, No hablo Dutch or whatever it is. Though from looking at the graph at the top, I can tell since they are using the Mann data set for temperature, This already falls under quasi research.




Was the point to support your claims with articles people cannot read, so they cannot comment on them?


What it says at the top...


I went ahead and bolded there for ya. Abrupt change in climate=/ extreme weather. This is also based on computer models. What have we covered about computer models ad nasuem? A prediction is not fact. A prediction can not prove anything. There are plenty of computer models out there that show no increase in extreme weather (and even show warming). More importantly observing historical data shows no increase in extreme weather as well.

Camlax is right. There is little evidence that severe weather events are increasing. There is evidence that the number of tropical cyclones is actually lower than in the recent past (although there is a slight tendency for them to be slightly stronger). And here in the UK AGW predictions (UKCIP02 report) state that "in summer, severe rainfall events will become less common".

However, when they do occur they cost more (and will cost even more next year, and the year after and ...... you get the point) and, of course, they are also being more widely reported.

Yeah, it is pretty deep here. Luckily, I found the right pair of boots to wade through all of the crap . Sometimes you can sort of put the thoughts in your mind and naturally progress to a conclusion. But, after reading all of this bunk having to do with studies and charts and opinions and I have come to the conclusion that it is all crap!
Have you ever heard of adaptation of the species, survival of the fittest, or is that too deep for ya? What is going to happen is the ones who can adapt will adapt and prolong the survival potential of mankind. There will always be the young, the old, the poor, the rich; that will never cease as long as you are here. There is now for all time going to be cars and factories and pollution and debate on what to do with it all. See, we have room.
But it is a closed room. The more we put into this room, the less room we have.

My point is that, at least in the post above this list, you have denied that these predictions existed, here I just copied the first result from Google. They do exist.

What about the statement, 'The calm before the storm.' I would be delighted to realize that the rise in the amount and fury of the storms is steadily increasing. THEN YOU COULD PLAN FOR IT! But we take the evidence of there being less as the indication that we should take some kind of vacation from the drudgery of caring for our fellow man and persue some other vocation, such as the creation of universes. I do not think that there is going to be any gradual increase in the strength or the number of storms, it will be sudden.

In this I tend to agree with you. The SEVERITY of the of the weather is what is important. The fact that this year the Jetstream has stubbornly refused to budge to the south of the UK is the reason why they are experiencing the worst rain for more than 60 years, the fact it hasnt moved south is the real problem... Climatic Circulation patterns need some serious re-modelling. Averaging or "best - fit" is really ignoring maxima and minima and will ALWAYS show a tendency to averaging these events, and as a whole cannot increase meteorlogcal knowledge.
IF the jetstream does not move south this summer then the winter in the UK and all regions north does not bear thinking about.

This is all part and parcel of Global Warming, extremes! If the monsoons fail in Asia then what? The Gulfstream has reduced by 30% in flow since records have begun, this is getting very close to the point where there is insufficient volume to maintain it but you will have to excuse me to verify the veracity of at what point the current switches off. It is very important to the UK and Ireland, and helps to maintain a temperate climate.

Extreme weather is not a "cop - out", the reason for the extreme weather in the UK is because the Jetstream has not moved to Southern latitudes . This is very much a case of "we do know". And there is nothing plain or boring around the "ol extreme weather front" in the UK. If it does not move then "local Climate" will soon become the climate driver for the whole northern hemisphere.

http://www.nov55.com/gbwg.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1496573.htm



http://www.nov55.com/oceans.html

http://www.oism.org/news/s49p725.htm




http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title..._Climate_Change

I think what is happening is that we as human beings have started covering this globe with houses, buildings, roads, parking lots, storage houses, car lots, etc. But everything we produce as a media based society mimicks life. Now, I'm pretty sure that there is some kind of life that can dwell in the tailpipe of an automobile. I think it is called 'carbon monoxide.' This life is being spread out and mixed with the other life in the atmosphere, such as, carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen, etc. And maybe the human race can bodily function in an atmosphere that is slowly being demoted to unfit by the adaptation of the species, which would be the same for all evolutionary creatures. But, we cannot forget, we are not the only beings on this planet. The more room that is consumed by man, the less room for the other species that share habitation on this globe. Then starts extinctions and environmental disequillibrium and it won't be that you can stop things and it wll be alright. That has long passed. Now and possibly all along, man is restricted to either a long or short death. The form of the flesh of man has not disappeared throughout their history so there must be a reason why they're here.

The earth is surrounded by a magnetic field that changes the polarity of the force from the sun. This changed polarity force then hits the width of 2 atoms, the Ozone layer, and the enters the atmosphere. If we did not have the magnetic sphere surrounding we would burn because of the force of the sun. The Ozone layer is something of a different explanation. I liken the Ozone layer to dispersing crystals and like picture magnifiers. The sun being the source of life and the earth is the screen that receives the projetion. Humans, animals, trees, flowers, insects, etc. are the holographic images caused by the ionic atoms from the sun. To figure out what I'm saying, you could study the path of light through a film projector. God is a director.


Am I saying that there is no need to worry or fear? Not at all. Worry and fear have their uses in the progress of a man from childhood to adult, but once you reach adulthood you have to forget about the child. Is there a reason why the globe is warming? It would be sort of childish to start blaming mankind for their own demise because of the choices they had to make to survive and there may be nothing that man can do to stop it, but to 'stop the horse while he is threshing out the corn' stops the forward momentum of man to enjoy a better learning process. Maybe we will alll die, but while I'm here, I am going to find ways to help my fellow man survive.

While I understand what you are saying, and agree that God is the director, as you've said, the best we can do is to forecast the world's long-range climate and to prepare in advance for the climate changes, such as global warming and global cooling that has always taken place on the Earth since the dawn of time.

From the Sydney Morning Herald ~

Imagine if the American government agency responsible for temperature records had announced a fortnight ago that it had overestimated annual temperatures since the year 2000. Imagine if, at the time of correcting this error, the hottest year on record was mysteriously altered from 1998 to 1934. Imagine further that if you considered the 10 hottest years on record after these corrections, the hottest decade changed from the 1990s to the 1930s.

Would that change your views on global warming? It should, because climate change theory says increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere raises the temperature. Yet the hot 1930s was hardly a decade of carbon-spewing industrial growth.

Well, all these things have happened. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies calculates the average US temperature figures. It does this by processing data from land measurement sites. Earlier this year a Canadian mathematician named Steve McIntyre approached the institute and pointed out an error in its more recent calculations. Figures since 2000 had been inflated by about 0.15 of a degree celsius.

For more, see link ~ http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/cold-ha...6857765035.html

The depends Essan. We have seen stronger storms during the last decade of the 1990s, and into the late 1990s, with a bit of a break in the early 2000s, then came Hurrican Katrina (historic for these times) and a number of powerful cyclones, and typhoons across the globe. The recent flooding in England, the American midwest and south, and building drought are also reflective of extreme weather conditions.

More scientific proof that carbon is good the Earth, and that the Sun is the cause of global warming ~

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf200...chibald2007.pdf

Yes, theo is right. The sun is causing the pollution that man puts in there to heat up.

Man causes pollution, and ecological damage. Man is not the cause of global warming. Only the Sun can warm the Earth, and does so very, very well.

APEC Nations Wrestle With Climate Change
By ROHAN SULLIVAN, Associated Press Writer
Sept. 6, 2007

SYDNEY, Australia - Pacific Rim nations agreed Thursday that climate change was of "vital interest," but officials squabbled over whether their leaders should include energy efficiency targets in a statement at their annual summit.

As officials worked for a third day to craft a statement about climate change that would be acceptable to all 21 leaders at their weekend summit, familiar battle lines resurfaced over the issue of greenhouse gas emission targets.

The U.S. and Australia want leaders of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation group to embrace a new approach to climate change that would require China — one of the world's biggest polluters — and other developing countries to agree to reduction targets on greenhouse gases.

But developing Asian countries were opposing a U.S.-backed Australian plan for the APEC leaders to include targets in their statement. Those countries maintain that APEC, a consensus-based, trade-oriented group, is no place to discuss the details of a new approach to tackling global warming.

For more, see ~ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070906/ap_on_...lmzIUcT1DRvieAA

Berlin Climate Meeting Helps To Pave Way For Bali: UN Official
September 11, 2007

BERLIN (AFP) - A 20-nation meeting in Berlin has helped lay the foundation for negotiations in Bali in December about a new climate change treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, a UN official said Tuesday.

"We have laid the foundation for formal talks," the executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Yvo de Boer, said in Berlin.

He said the two-day meeting of ministers of the Group of Eight plus 12 other major energy consumers that ended in Berlin on Tuesday had helped forge greater understanding between the haves and the have-nots on combating global warming.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070911/sc_af...bdNIJRlLYqs0NUE

Ozone: The Hole Truth
By Ben Lieberman
September 19, 2007

The international treaty to protect the ozone layer turns 20 this year. But is there really much reason to celebrate?

Environmentalists have made many apocalyptic predictions over the last several decades. Virtually none has come to pass. Yet each time, the greens and their political allies proclaim victory, arguing their preventive prescriptions averted disaster.

Such is the case with the 1987 Montreal Protocol On Substances That Deplete The Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol). The lurid predictions of ozone depletion-induced skin cancer epidemics, ecosystem destruction and others haven't come true, for which Montreal Protocol proponents congratulate themselves.

See ~ http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/200.../109190031/1012

The earth is protected by a magnetic field surrounding and this field is made by the core somehow. There hasn't been a pole shift recently besides a wobble and that is evident by the hurricane storm tracks and the fronts crossing the US. I am no expert, but I don't think it too much in the way of brains to figure out that having a globe with an iron magnet in the center with a couple of hundreds of miles of 'stuff' and then a surface will cause the surrounding sphere of protection; a simple way of looking at it. But, you put on this surface magnetic elements, cars, buildings, everybody and his brother carrying around devices with magnetic properties, and all of this stuff can be magnetized it would cause a separate sphere surrounding and all of this metal can be heated by the activity from the sun. The metals heated on this earth do not give off ultraviolet rays or anything like that, they absorb the rays and give off the heat. Apparently, we have two ionospheres because of the separate magnet that is caused by the metals we have put on this earth. Put a piece of magnetic metal on a magnet and doesn't the magnetic piece become the magnet? I also think that by putting the metal on the surface, at least, shrinks the protective sphere bringing the heat causing rays closer to the earth.

What on EARTH is an Astrometeorologist ?

Meow Purr.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...rs-warming.html
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-war...olar-system.htm
Not all planets in the solar system are warming

Only 6 planets or moons out of the 100+ bodies in the solar system have been observed to be warming. On the other hand, Uranus is cooling (Young 2001)

Could it be that the radiating energies/frequencies from the sun is changing???
So that it reacts differently... chemically with other planets??

that the magnetic fields of these planets are changing??

The Interplanetary Magnetic Field
It comes from the Sun!
http://www.spaceweather.com/glossary/imf.html

The Sun is a big magnet.
__________________

The Matrix!

I have read other articles exposing the myth of man-caused global warming, and I have even published a couple, plus a few blogs. But this is the best one I have ever seen, tightly reasoned, with a mass of hard data effectively compacted into relatively few words. Your article should be required reading in all public schools.
William B Stoecker

Yes, something published on here, not in a scientific journal should be required reading for schools. Especially when you argue that data from against you is just a conspiracy. Great logic.

Thanks William. I try my best.

Yes, it is, and is very good at what it does, which is to warm (and to cool) the Earth and the other planets in our solar system.

We are being wiped from our own planet. We will not survive this. Earth will never make the mistake of man again. He takes and takes, but never gives. I don't think we have long to live.

Earth is a rock, it doesn't make conscious decisions. It is all just chemical reactions.

Considering the state of the world and the seemingly endless reductions in common sense and IQs, you may have something there. Many people are so unaware of how their own planet's climate works that it's not a wonder humanity continues to be so greedy, and ignorant of their own lack of knowledge, despite all the knowledge surrounding us. If we wipe ourselves out, we have only ourselves to blame.

As fashionable as it is to denigrate mankind and blame him for all of Earth's sorrows, you are wrong. Man does take and take, but so does every other animal in existence. There is one thing that man does, however, that no other animal does. Man tries to fix his mistakes. Man protects other species at his own expense.

Some men (and women too) do. However, as a species, we have done a poor job at taking care of the planet, surely since the 18th century. We can, and should do much better in this century.

Don't take my word for it, but the earth does not give a flying monkeys feces about humans. Nor does it care about anything else. Humans will live and die like the dino's did. Did mother earth weep for them? Humans do exploit the earth and create unfavorable surroundings, but I can tell you the planet does not care what we do. The planet will correct itself and time is it's weapon. Everything we take from the earth returns to the earth, well except the stuff we sent to the moon and mars and what have you but that might mean 0.000000000000000000000000000001 of anything was lost from the planet. My numbers may be off LOL

There is no "men" and "women", when talking about species. Individuals do not matter. As a species, humans are the only ones who give a flying fig about the state of the planet, and we are the only ones who have attempted to modify our (and that of other animals) behavior to try and better it.



Performance is measured by the past, not the future. If you try to hold humanity to some non-existent, idealistic, standard, you are setting yourself up for failure.

I disagree with that. Individuals do matter. Groups are nothing more than multiple individuals. Moreover, the future matters as well, because thinking and planning in the present in the positive always has the best insurance for the future.

Irrelevant. We aren't talking about politics or why one person hugs a tree and the other chops it down. We are talking about species and their affects on the planets. Only one species on the planet makes the conscious decision to fix their mistakes.



Of course you think and plan in the present (when else could you think and plan?). Planning for the future is always the best policy, but to measure success, you need realistic goals or you are setting yourself up for failure. Realistic goals can be obtained by studying the results of the past. Saying that one should do much better is not a goal, and it is far too open ended to be of any use.

In all honesty, better for us(humans) doesn't mean it is actually for the better. I know for a fact that if there was a species that was critical for any given habitat and if it was a threat to the local population, it would be eliminated. Whether that be by population control(killing them on sight) or habitat restriction(building borders to keep them or us out), depends on where you live. Both methods have been used countless times.

I don't really believe in right or wrong or that one state of being for a habitat is better than another, so either method is fine with me. Also saying we care about the state of the planet is only a half-truth. What people really care about is THEIR habitat and THEIR local surroundings. I would have to guess only 10% of the current AGW supporters would still be there if only the southern hemisphere was in danger... Assuming we're in any danger at all(which I don't think we are).

I agree, however, not even all stated goals are attainable, and saying that we just have a goal is not enough. What is realistic to some is not to others, and although the past is very, very valuable in measuring successes, we must remember that the past holds our failures as well, and our goals must be defined, and met by becoming practical, and learning from failure, because sometimes when you win, you lose, and sometimes when you lose, you've really won. The past has often shown this to be true.

The SUN, Man, Normal earth stuff or little purple munchkin monkeys either way there is a problem and instead of fighting over the cause lets find a cure or at least treat the symptoms. Now who has a giant tub of sunscreen we can rub on all over the planet?

Well, it's not sunscreen, but there is a proposal to place a giant blanket over the edges of the glaciers to reduce melt.

There's nothing we can do to stop global warming, or global cooling for that matter. We canot control the Sun, and the Sun is the cause of all our climate conditions here on Earth. All we can do is forecast in advance and adjust & prepare to the climate conditions to come.