Resisting Climate Hysteria

[basilio]

We have had blast of winter weather in the past few days.

When you look at the very large changes that are happening to the climate around the world are we just trying to kid ourselves that nothing is actually happening because of a winter blast ?

For example August and September were extremely warm months across Australia. The BOM website details just how our climate is changing.

We know that the last 2 years have been cooler and wetter because of the La Nina effect. This year we will probabaly return to a normal hot summer - with a bit extra because of overall global warming.

(At this stage the BOM believes we will not have an El Niño )

Temperatures

September maximum temperatures averaged across Australia were very warm, with a national anomaly of +1.94 °C, ranking as the third warmest September of 63 years. All of the States were well above average for the month, with WA fourth warmest (1.96 °C above average), SA sixth warmest, both NSW and Queensland ninth, and the NT tenth in 63 years of records.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/aus/archive/201209.summary.shtml

 

[sptrawler]

Yeh, we know basilio.
The climates changing, the government has brought in a new tax. They are not shutting down 'dirty' coal fired stations and it is snowing in southern Queensland.

 

[spooly74]

Climate Spin is Rampant

Along with colleagues around the world, I've been studying climate change and disasters for almost 20 years, and we just had a scientific paper accepted for publication this week on damage from U.S. tornadoes since 1950. What we found may surprise you: Over the past six decades, tornado damage has declined after accounting for development that has put more property into harm's way.

Researchers have similar conclusions for other phenomena around the world, ranging from typhoons in China, bushfires in Australia, and windstorms in Europe. After adjusting for patterns of development, over the long-term there is no climate change signal ”” no "footprint" ”” of increasing damage from extreme events either globally or in particular regions.

What about the United States?, Flooding has not increased over the past century nor have landfalling hurricanes. Remarkably, the U.S. is currently experiencing the longest-ever recorded period with no strikes of a Category 3 or stronger hurricane. The major 2012 drought obscures the fact that the U.S. has seen a decline in drought over the past century.

Such scientific findings are so robust that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded earlier this year that over the long-term, damage from extreme events has not been attributed to climate change, whether from natural or human causes.

So if the science is so clear on this subject, why then are companies and campaigners, abetted by a willing media, engaged in spreading misinformation?

 

[white_goodman]

We have had blast of winter weather in the past few days.

When you look at the very large changes that are happening to the climate around the world are we just trying to kid ourselves that nothing is actually happening because of a winter blast ?

For example August and September were extremely warm months across Australia. The BOM website details just how our climate is changing.

We know that the last 2 years have been cooler and wetter because of the La Nina effect. This year we will probabaly return to a normal hot summer - with a bit extra because of overall global warming.

(At this stage the BOM believes we will not have an El Niño )



http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/aus/archive/201209.summary.shtml

wow dangerous

 

[DB008]

Article from the UK's Mail online

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...y-released--chart-prove-it.html#ixzz29GwvsoTe

 

[Calliope]

A big win for the global warming alarmists. If the alarmists were subject to the same discipline, i.e. they cannot exaggerate or tell lies, there would be a shortage of "external trainers" because they are all alarmists.

ACMA has ordered all 2GB news and current affairs staff to undergo training in factual accuracy by next month.
External trainers will conduct training sessions for Jones and other news and current affairs staff at 2GB.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...ent-apology-20121019-27v88.html#ixzz29iwE336W

 

[explod]

Temperatures are measured at ground level. The increased temperature of the atmosphere overall creates more moisture to rise and therefore more cloud cover over the lower level where the temperature is monitored.

The movements between the upper and lower are becoming increasingly violent, ie. more floods and wild storms.

Those off the land and in our elder years can see these things increasing compared to the past. One does not have to be a rocket scientist, the anecdotal is enough now for those with the right eyes (those that care I might add) to see,

what is alarmist about a such view?

 

[wayneL]

Temperatures are measured at ground level. The increased temperature of the atmosphere overall creates more moisture to rise and therefore more cloud cover over the lower level where the temperature is monitored.

The movements between the upper and lower are becoming increasingly violent, ie. more floods and wild storms.

Those off the land and in our elder years can see these things increasing compared to the past. One does not have to be a rocket scientist, the anecdotal is enough now for those with the right eyes (those that care I might add) to see,

what is alarmist about a such view?

The fact that it is incorrect?

 

[white_goodman]

Temperatures are measured at ground level. The increased temperature of the atmosphere overall creates more moisture to rise and therefore more cloud cover over the lower level where the temperature is monitored.

The movements between the upper and lower are becoming increasingly violent, ie. more floods and wild storms.

Those off the land and in our elder years can see these things increasing compared to the past. One does not have to be a rocket scientist, the anecdotal is enough now for those with the right eyes (those that care I might add) to see,

what is alarmist about a such view?

because its not based in reality, we are not getting more floods or wild storms...

 

[explod]

The fact that it is incorrect?

How?

 

[explod]

because its not based in reality, we are not getting more floods or wild storms...

we are, just check the insurance industry payouts.

 

[wayneL]

we are, just check the insurance industry payouts.

Stats confuse. Read Freakonomics.

Basic arithmetic is better.

 

[explod]

Stats confuse. Read Freakonomics.

Basic arithmetic is better.

Did, and your run for shelter is a meaningless scoff at reality.

Surely you can do better than that.

 

[wayneL]

Did, and your run for shelter is a meaningless scoff at reality.

Surely you can do better than that.

Arithmetic, hard science, actual unadjusted records... these things are reality.

Pielke Jnr oped :

Along with colleagues around the world, I've been studying climate change and disasters for almost 20 years, and we just had a scientific paper accepted for publication this week on damage from U.S. tornadoes since 1950. What we found may surprise you: Over the past six decades, tornado damage has declined after accounting for development that has put more property into harm's way.
Researchers have similar conclusions for other phenomena around the world, ranging from typhoons in China, bushfires in Australia, and windstorms in Europe. After adjusting for patterns of development, over the long-term there is no climate change signal ”” no "footprint" ”” of increasing damage from extreme events either globally or in particular regions.

What about the United States? Flooding has not increased over the past century, nor have landfalling hurricanes. Remarkably, the U.S. is currently experiencing the longest-ever recorded period with no strikes of a Category 3 or stronger hurricane. The major 2012 drought obscures the fact that the U.S. has seen a decline in drought over the past century.

Such scientific findings are so robust that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded earlier this year that over the long-term, damage from extreme events has not been attributed to climate change, whether from natural or human causes.


Read more: Guest Commentary: Climate spin is rampant - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_21752735/climate-spin-is-rampant#ixzz29q3LpqCB
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

 

[cynic]

Arithmetic, hard science, actual unadjusted records... these things are reality.

Pielke Jnr oped :

But Wayne, since when did we decide to allow the truth to get in the way of a great Story?

P.S. Keep up the good work, the tireless churning of the propaganda mill by these religious fanatics is starting to exhaust me.

 

[ghotib]

Arithmetic, hard science, actual unadjusted records... these things are reality.

So obviously you quote Dr Pielke as an example of un-reality.

...damage has declined after accounting for development...

and

...After adjusting for patterns of development,...

Or are you providing an example of why data often needs adjusting before it can provide meaningful information?

Or both?

Whatever, good point. Thank you.

Ghoti

 

[wayneL]

So obviously you quote Dr Pielke as an example of un-reality.

and

Or are you providing an example of why data often needs adjusting before it can provide meaningful information?

Or both?

Whatever, good point. Thank you.

Ghoti

Such tiresome logical fallacy. <<--(just so you wouldn't be disappointed)

Can you lease illustrate why adjustment of temp records is analogous to adjusting raw damage incidence for increases in exposure via population increases etc?

 

[ghotib]

Such tiresome logical fallacy. <<--(just so you wouldn't be disappointed)

How kind; I hope they don't hurt.

Can you lease illustrate why adjustment of temp records is analogous to adjusting raw damage incidence for increases in exposure via population increases etc?

Well, in both cases the aim is to see if a trend exists and if so what it is. That's one reason they're analogous. Then in both cases we know of some irrelevant factors that could hide or disguise a trend. For costs of damage from extreme weather they include demographic changes and inflation. For surface temperature they include changes in the location of weather stations (e.g. Wellington, where there's a height difference of over 120 metres, as you probably know http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/c...rature-data-from-multiple-sites-in-wellington). That's another reason.

 

[Knobby22]

Well this is the actual graph. From a "skeptic" site.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/...t-not-their-strength-say-clemson-researchers/



It has to be "adjusted' because we have better methods for detecting them however who chooses the adjustment?
Definitely analogous. The raw data doesn't appear to be so unclear. And how much adjustment is "really' needed after 1970??

 

[white_goodman]

we are, just check the insurance industry payouts.

facepalm.jpg