Hottest January in recorded history

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

31 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

Where are you from?

Doug

Didn't you know that global climate data is measured by what RabidMongoose can see out of his window ? 

Edit: he is from the UK as far as I know.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Noteverythingisaconspiracy

[tmcom]

 

8 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

Which analysis uses ALL available data?  That's likely to be the most-accurate one.  Use a regression line (straight line) to determine rate of change.  That will be the most-accurate one and least affected by data errors (See below).

I suspect I know what your problem is:  the very first reading from May 1914 is 1.111.  The very last reading from August 2019 is 0.990.  Subtract the last from the first and you show a DROP in sea level of 0.121m. almost exactly what you are saying.

But there is lots of reason to doubt the accuracy of that first reading.  First, it is the ninth largest reading in the entire dataset of 1264 observations.  That means there's a 0.006329 (0.6329%) chance of getting a higher figure by chance.  Second, the difference between the first and second readings shows the second largest drop in the entire dataset.  AND, it was taken at a time when the people at the station were just learning how to set up and use a tide gauge.  That means there is about a 0.0008 chance of the first reading being accurate.  Thus, I strongly suspect that first reading is a bad one.  Somebody didn't put the gauge on a sturdy enough base and it shifted during the first month.  If there are other bad readings in there, I can't find them.  And in any case, the deletion of troublesome readings should be engaged in very sparsely.

There are whole books written on finding bad data and deleting it from your analysis.  I suggest you find one and study up on the subject to learn the difference between deleting a bad reading and cherry-picking data.  I don't think you deliberately cherry-picked this dataset, but rather, you got ahold of a bad reading that distorted your results.

Doug

Lol, you and the mad duck are interchangable, well, Tasmania matches, is that bad data, and they both match AU coastline recent data report, l guess that is out also?

"And the IPCC's predictions have been spot on", that has to be the stupidest remark to date, l could write a book on how many times they have f...up

As for the rest, trying to sound intelligent pretty much covers it.

So no cherry picking, just that sea levels for AU, and the three oceans covering at least, well most of our planet, show nada, for the last 70 years. Or in other words No sea level rise!

5 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

As I look out of my window the snow I can see makes me wonder whether they get their data from.

It has been freezing here all month.

Yes, exactly, we had a mild winters day yesterday, but of course that is weather, not climate, (as the nutters put it) no it raises serious doubts.

I feel like taking a cattle prod to the herd.

[Duke Wellington]

9 hours ago, tmcom said:

 

Lol, you and the mad duck are interchangable, well, Tasmania matches, is that bad data, and they both match AU coastline recent data report, l guess that is out also?

"And the IPCC's predictions have been spot on", that has to be the stupidest remark to date, l could write a book on how many times they have f...up

As for the rest, trying to sound intelligent pretty much covers it.

So no cherry picking, just that sea levels for AU, and the three oceans covering at least, well most of our planet, show nada, for the last 70 years. Or in other words No sea level rise!

Yes, exactly, we had a mild winters day yesterday, but of course that is weather, not climate, (as the nutters put it) no it raises serious doubts.

I feel like taking a cattle prod to the herd.

I would like to see the statistical model they are using to see if it `creates alarm` where none exists.

[Doug1029]

12 hours ago, tmcom said:

"And the IPCC's predictions have been spot on", that has to be the stupidest remark to date, l could write a book on how many times they have f...up

How about citing some examples?  Their predictions are available in the various Assessment Reports.  Cite one from one of those.  There are a bunch of them.  I'll let you take your pick.

The IPCC ARs list four "scenarios" for each major forecast.  Two are "conservative" and two are "liberal."  In each case, one of those scenarios has been spot on.  You can say that the others are wrong, but the IPCC didn't actually predict them.  What they predict is that ONE of those four scenarios will be close to what has happened.

Doug

 

[Doug1029]

13 hours ago, tmcom said:

"And the IPCC's predictions have been spot on", that has to be the stupidest remark to date, l could write a book on how many times they have f...up

Thought I'd help you find those predictions so you can learn what they actually say.  You can look them up here:  https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter10-1.pdf

Temperature:

For emission scenarios B1, A1B and B1 warming is predicted between +0.64C and +0.69C for the period 2011-2030 over the period 1980-1999.  This is a pretty narrow range and we are already halfway through it.  Warming since 1988, the year corresponding to 2018 has been +0.40.  By 2030 that should work out at +0.63, just below IPCC's prediction.

For 2099, scenario B1 forecasts warming of +1.1 to +2.9C.  That's lower than AOC's guess of +1.5 for 2030.  Serious ecological damage starts at about +2.0.

Scenario B1 forecasts warming of +1.4 to +3.8C.  The worst case is scenario A2 with a high estimate of +5.8.  It is alo the least likely.

 

Precipitation:

They don't give specific numbers, but say that precipitation is expected to increase generally.  That's exactly what it's doing.

 

Precipitation Extremes

The IPCC predicts an increase in extreme events.  Hurricane Hugo would be one of these events, as would Maria.

They predict increasing droughts in mid-continent areas.  So far, that is not the case in Oklahoma.  The most serious droughts so far have been in Australia and Southern California, both include coastal areas.

 

Sea Level

Scenario B1 predicts sea level rise of +0.18 to +0.38m.  That's exactly what we are seeing right now.  The other scenarios are all more extreme.

 

In general, Scenario B1 seems to be the closest fit to what we are seeing.  It is also the most "conservative" scenario.

The people who sensationalize global warming, like tmcom, use more-extreme, less-likely examples.  While there is a chance that the more extreme cases could happen, they probably won't.

Doug

[tmcom]

1 hour ago, Doug1029 said:

How about citing some examples?  Their predictions are available in the various Assessment Reports.  Cite one from one of those.  There are a bunch of them.  I'll let you take your pick.

The IPCC ARs list four "scenarios" for each major forecast.  Two are "conservative" and two are "liberal."  In each case, one of those scenarios has been spot on.  You can say that the others are wrong, but the IPCC didn't actually predict them.  What they predict is that ONE of those four scenarios will be close to what has happened.

Doug

 

Couldn't be bothered, and Tony Hellar video's have covered the examples and then some.

Why don't you type in "UN failed predictions" to get a list, (and the IPCC/NASA are behind most of the endless failure record).

20 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

Thought I'd help you find those predictions so you can learn what they actually say.  You can look them up here:  https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter10-1.pdf

Temperature:

For emission scenarios B1, A1B and B1 warming is predicted between +0.64C and +0.69C for the period 2011-2030 over the period 1980-1999.  This is a pretty narrow range and we are already halfway through it.  Warming since 1988, the year corresponding to 2018 has been +0.40.  By 2030 that should work out at +0.63, just below IPCC's prediction.

For 2099, scenario B1 forecasts warming of +1.1 to +2.9C.  That's lower than AOC's guess of +1.5 for 2030.  Serious ecological damage starts at about +2.0.

Scenario B1 forecasts warming of +1.4 to +3.8C.  The worst case is scenario A2 with a high estimate of +5.8.  It is alo the least likely.

 

Precipitation:

They don't give specific numbers, but say that precipitation is expected to increase generally.  That's exactly what it's doing.

 

Precipitation Extremes

The IPCC predicts an increase in extreme events.  Hurricane Hugo would be one of these events, as would Maria.

They predict increasing droughts in mid-continent areas.  So far, that is not the case in Oklahoma.  The most serious droughts so far have been in Australia and Southern California, both include coastal areas.

 

Sea Level

Scenario B1 predicts sea level rise of +0.18 to +0.38m.  That's exactly what we are seeing right now.  The other scenarios are all more extreme.

 

In general, Scenario B1 seems to be the closest fit to what we are seeing.  It is also the most "conservative" scenario.

The people who sensationalize global warming, like tmcom, use more-extreme, less-likely examples.  While there is a chance that the more extreme cases could happen, they probably won't.

Doug

An increase in extreme events with a disclaimer that it probably won't happen, lol, read those money grab reports.

And extreme weather or cyclone frequency and numbers are decreasing.

1896 was the worst year in your history for cyclones with 7 devastating ones hitting the US that year, (which makes current numbers pretty funny) why don't you delve into your history than go to some BS NASA the Facts site, you might learn something!

Edited February 16, 2020 by tmcom

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, tmcom said:

1896 was the worst year in your history for cyclones with 7 devastating ones hitting the US that year, (which makes current numbers pretty funny) why don't you delve into your history than go to some BS NASA the Facts site, you might learn something!

How many hurricanes hit the US is not a measure of hurricane numbers.  How many occurred world wide?  And what strength were they?  You need those numbers to guesstimate energy release.  What global warming theory predicts is more energy release in the form of storms.  Those can come as a few large hurricanes or hundreds of small thunderstorms, or anything in between.

Doug

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, tmcom said:

Couldn't be bothered, and Tony Hellar video's have covered the examples and then some.

Too lazy?

Doug

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, tmcom said:

An increase in extreme events with a disclaimer that it probably won't happen, lol, read those money grab reports.

It's the worst scenarios that probably won't happen.  There will still be increasing numbers of extreme events.  In fact, there already have been.  We are halfway through the prediction window and have already had many of those storms.

Doug

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, tmcom said:

Why don't you type in "UN failed predictions" to get a list, (and the IPCC/NASA are behind most of the endless failure record).

OK.  I did.  Here is the first thing I came to:  https://themoderatevoice.com/a-failed-un-prediction/

 

This article is very misleading.  On purpose?

The first sentence says:  "A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000."

It is 2020 and the global warming trend has not been reversed.  So just when are these events supposed to occur?  The article doesn't say.  But, we can figure it out from what we know of sea level rise:  "As the warming melts polar ice caps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations."  How fat is the water rising?  The global average is one foot per century, so the Maldives will disappear about 2300 AD.  Of course, in that part of the world sea level rise is less than one foot per century, maybe as low as four inches a century.  That would mean the Maldives would disappear about 3000 AD.  So, sometime between 2300 and 3000 AD the Maldives will disappear.

 

"Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of 'eco-refugees,' threatening political chaos .."

Already under way.  The US has been involved in wars in the mideast for 20 years.  During the 1980s drought in the Mediterranean Basin caused crop failures and caused farmers to leave their land for the cities where they expected their governments to help them out.  Those governments either lacked the ability or the concern to act.  As a result these refugees turned on the entity they considered responsible for their plight:  the US govt.  The political chaos predicted by Noel Brown has been on-going for decades.

 

"A fifth of Egypt's arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply..."

The highest point on the Isthmus of Suez is 62 feet above sea level.  It will take 6200 years for rising seas to get that far.  So long about 8200 AD you will be able to sail a small boat from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea without using the Suez Canal.

Cairo is at an elevation of 32 feet.  At the current rate, it will take 3200 years for rising sea levels to reach that far inland, flooding the delta.  Of course, large areas will disappear sooner, but that still leaves at least a thousand years before we reach the half-way point.

 

"Shifting climate patterns would bring back 1930s Dust Bowl conditions to Canadian and U.S. wheatlands...  Ain't happenin'.  This area is getting wetter, AS PREDICTED BY GLOBAL WARMING THEORY.

 

SO:  Mr. Brown did not know what global warming theory predicts.  The article was published by the Associated Press and is dated June 29, 1989.  I did manage to find the original article.  Only part of it is used by tmcom's poster.

The official in question is Noel J. Brown, a UN official and administrator.  He is NOT an environmental scientist.  In the 1980s it was thought that global warming would proceed faster than it has.  The UN's First Assessment Report came out in 1991.  It was much more conservative in its forecasts.  It was already being written when this article was written.  Mr. Brown should have had access to the information it contained.  That he did not use it, makes it quite clear that HE DIDN'T DO HIS HOMEWORK.  He was not ready for the interview.  That being the case, he should have declined the interview until he was ready.

Conclusion:  most of the information in this 1989 article has been superseded by more-recent research.  The information is dated and inaccurate.

Recommendation:  get more-recent information.  A 30-year-old newspaper article is anything except a reliable source of scientific information.

Doug

[tmcom]

Quote

Recommendation:  get more-recent information.  A 30-year-old newspaper article is anything except a reliable source of scientific information.

Doug

Be careful for what you ask for, lol.

And this is from the IPCC 2012 report, or the ipotomy if evil owns up.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/managing-the-risks-of-extreme-events-and-disasters-to-advance-climate-change-adaptation/

And the report or number #3.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SREX-Chap3_FINAL-1.pdf

Page 112, up the top.

Quote

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 lento 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. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic influence on increasing extreme coastal high water due to an increase in mean sea level. The uncertainties in the historical tropical cyclone records, the incomplete understanding of the physical mechanisms linking tropical cyclone metrics to climate change, and the degree of tropical cyclone variability provide only low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences. Attribution of single extreme events to anthropogenic climate change is challenging.

And anthropogenic means we did it.

So no one can say cyclone activity worldwide is caused by man made climate change or is increasing!

Now let's see what the lemmings, salivating at the thought of a cliff face, money binge have to say...

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/RisingCost/rising_cost5.php

Quote

More uncertain—but possible—outcomes of an increase in global temperatures include increased risk of drought and increased intensity of storms, including tropical cyclones with higher wind speeds,

"More uncertain but possible", l mean seriously! So it won't happen!

http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml

The BOM, similar or the chart shows cyclones are decreasing up to 2017, although they bleat that they want it to increase, to feed their knee or other gerk reaction.

Or 1979 to 2017, they say it is unreliable data before then, l bet!

 

So cyclone intensity and occurrence is decreasing world wide, with the biggest liars covering their asses, and saying in a sheepish way it is not increasing.

 

This media circus is coming to an end, with no doubt the fools that followed them doing likewise, (or trying to).

[Doug1029]

11 hours ago, tmcom said:

Be careful for what you ask for, lol.

And this is from the IPCC 2012 report, or the ipotomy if evil owns up.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/managing-the-risks-of-extreme-events-and-disasters-to-advance-climate-change-adaptation/

And the report or number #3.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SREX-Chap3_FINAL-1.pdf

Page 112, up the top.

And anthropogenic means we did it.

So no one can say cyclone activity worldwide is caused by man made climate change or is increasing!

Now let's see what the lemmings, salivating at the thought of a cliff face, money binge have to say...

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/RisingCost/rising_cost5.php

"More uncertain but possible", l mean seriously! So it won't happen!

http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml

The BOM, similar or the chart shows cyclones are decreasing up to 2017, although they bleat that they want it to increase, to feed their knee or other gerk reaction.

Or 1979 to 2017, they say it is unreliable data before then, l bet!

 

So cyclone intensity and occurrence is decreasing world wide, with the biggest liars covering their asses, and saying in a sheepish way it is not increasing.

 

This media circus is coming to an end, with no doubt the fools that followed them doing likewise, (or trying to).

First:  please post an exact reference so I can answer a specific charge.  Your scatter gun approach makes it impossible to tell what you are talking about.  Example:  "the UN said in this report on page xxx that number and intensity of storms would increase by yy% by 2020."  That is a statement that can be accepted or refuted according to evidence.  Vague hints at what might happen are not testable.

 

Most climate scientists won't hazard a guess as to whether a particular storm was brought about by climate change.  When climate change predicts there will be 16 storms this year and we got 18, was the last storm one of the 16 or one of the other two?  No way to tell.  It's the total energy discharged that counts.

 

Seeing as tmcom doesn't want to post a specific claim, let's take a look at sea level rise:  Go to Google Earth and check out 30d 13' 32" N, 88d06'W.  That's Pelican Island in the Gulf of Mexico just south of Mobile Bay.  Check its appearance in 2017.  Those speckles are pelicans.  Now work your way back to 1992.  Where is the island?

Pelican Island was sold by the US govt to a settler in 1824 for $34.  The survey showed a land area of 34 acres.  It was used as a farm during the 1830s and 1840s.  A hurricane later took it out and it has only reappeared since the mid-1990s.  That's how sea level rise takes land.  One storm at a time wipes out an island or a beach, then redeposits it only to wipe it out again a few years later with the island getting progressively smaller over time.

Dog Island, located between Ship Island and Horn Island off Biloxi, Mississippi is another disappearing island.  It was reported as present from the mid-nineteenth to early twentieth centuries.  It is located just outside US territorial waters, so US and Mississippi laws do not apply there.  As a result it was used by bootleggers and other nefarious types to evade the law.  In 1926 three partners opened  the Isle of Caprice hotel there, featuring gambling and the sale of alcoholic drinks.  Steady shore erosion followed by a hurricane in 1932 resulted in the island's abandonment.  You can find the site (now underwater) at 30.2415N 88.8529W.  Flip through the photo date file to watch Ship and Horn Islands changing shape.

Petit Bois Island between Horn Island and Dauphin Island is now about half is large as it used to be.  Another hurricane was the reason.

That's how rising sea levels take land.  A storm washes away an island, which reappears after another storm, only to be washed away in a later one.  Each cycle puts less land above water until finally, the island is gone permanently.  This cyclical process means that low-lying islands and sea shores will be functionally lost to the sea long before rising seas actually submerge them.  Can you imagine trying to farm Pelican Island today?

 

There area also some disappearing islands in the Florida Keys.

Doug

 

[tmcom]

36 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

First:  please post an exact reference so I can answer a specific charge.  Your scatter gun approach makes it impossible to tell what you are talking about.  Example:  "the UN said in this report on page xxx that number and intensity of storms would increase by yy% by 2020."  That is a statement that can be accepted or refuted according to evidence.  Vague hints at what might happen are not testable.

 

Most climate scientists won't hazard a guess as to whether a particular storm was brought about by climate change.  When climate change predicts there will be 16 storms this year and we got 18, was the last storm one of the 16 or one of the other two?  No way to tell.  It's the total energy discharged that counts.

 

Seeing as tmcom doesn't want to post a specific claim, let's take a look at sea level rise:  Go to Google Earth and check out 30d 13' 32" N, 88d06'W.  That's Pelican Island in the Gulf of Mexico just south of Mobile Bay.  Check its appearance in 2017.  Those speckles are pelicans.  Now work your way back to 1992.  Where is the island?

Pelican Island was sold by the US govt to a settler in 1824 for $34.  The survey showed a land area of 34 acres.  It was used as a farm during the 1830s and 1840s.  A hurricane later took it out and it has only reappeared since the mid-1990s.  That's how sea level rise takes land.  One storm at a time wipes out an island or a beach, then redeposits it only to wipe it out again a few years later with the island getting progressively smaller over time.

Dog Island, located between Ship Island and Horn Island off Biloxi, Mississippi is another disappearing island.  It was reported as present from the mid-nineteenth to early twentieth centuries.  It is located just outside US territorial waters, so US and Mississippi laws do not apply there.  As a result it was used by bootleggers and other nefarious types to evade the law.  In 1926 three partners opened  the Isle of Caprice hotel there, featuring gambling and the sale of alcoholic drinks.  Steady shore erosion followed by a hurricane in 1932 resulted in the island's abandonment.  You can find the site (now underwater) at 30.2415N 88.8529W.  Flip through the photo date file to watch Ship and Horn Islands changing shape.

Petit Bois Island between Horn Island and Dauphin Island is now about half is large as it used to be.  Another hurricane was the reason.

That's how rising sea levels take land.  A storm washes away an island, which reappears after another storm, only to be washed away in a later one.  Each cycle puts less land above water until finally, the island is gone permanently.  This cyclical process means that low-lying islands and sea shores will be functionally lost to the sea long before rising seas actually submerge them.  Can you imagine trying to farm Pelican Island today?

There area also some disappearing islands in the Florida Keys.

Doug

 

Geesh, this is like war and peace, but in a nutshell, the IPCC, NASA and BOM all show and say cyclone intensity and numbers are decreasing!

Unless they are wrong,lol.

Maybe you should cite the BS site you heard that from, (cyclones are getting stronger and more frequent) so we can avoid it?

[Essan]

Think the last I heard was that whist cyclonic activity overall was declining, big cyclones are getting more frequent.  And bigger.

This fits a similar pattern to rainfall: less rain overall but more torrential downpours and floods

[Doug1029]

18 minutes ago, tmcom said:

Geesh, this is like war and peace, but in a nutshell, the IPCC, NASA and BOM all show and say cyclone intensity and numbers are decreasing!

Where do they say that?

I looked up some research papers:

Pielke et al (2005) https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-86-11-1571 show no changes in hurricane frequency or intensity over the last 1000 years.

Bender et al. (2010) https://science.sciencemag.org/content/327/5964/454 predict a doubling of Category 4 and 5 storms by 2100.

Bengston et al. (1996) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1034/j.1600-0870.1996.00004.x show that the number of storms is significantly reduced.

Knutson et al. (2008) https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo202 show increased hurricane numbers from 1950 to 2006, but are expecting a decline in numbers during the 21st century.

Lots of explanations are about the same as no explanation.

My own research with small continental storms indicates significant increases in storm number and frequency occurred between 1965 and 2005.

Doug