EXTREME...EXTREME...EXTREME....Sounds seriously if it was not laughable from the good old Fabian Guardian News Paper.....What else would expect from them.......The LUG party sympathizers. ...
Give up Rumpy......it is the weather and the Sun.
Resisting Climate Hysteria
- Thread starter Mickel
- Start date
EXTREME...EXTREME...EXTREME....Sounds seriously if it was not laughable from the good old Fabian Guardian News Paper.....What else would expect from them.......The LUG party sympathizers. ...
Give up Rumpy......it is the weather and the Sun.
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,295
- Reactions
- 17,525
Any chance of sending it a bit further south? Somewhere around Great Lake would be useful right now....
Or maybe around Campbell Town as the farms are pretty much stuffed and there's a bit of concern about the town's water supply.
Failing that, we'll happily have it pretty much anywhere down here.
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain...test&step=1&map=percent&period=3month&area=ta
ghotib
THIMKER
- Joined
- 30 July 2004
- Posts
- 1,057
- Reactions
- 88
Umm Wayne,
I count places for 41 graphs (they didn't all display on my system, but I have a poor Internet connection) on that page. Precisely TWO (2) are global data. One is a drought index, and the other is precipitation. None of the others include the southern hemisphere, and a large proportion are only for the US (many only the contiguous states).
That in no way answers the Guardian article, which refers to several types of extreme weather event and points out that "extreme" depends on the region as well as the event - an extreme heat wave in the UK would likely not be extreme in Marble Bar.
I don't see the connection between "risk adjusted stats" and Watts' extreme weather page. Is there one? For that matter, what's the relevance of risk adjustment to the global frequency and intensity of extreme weather events? Humans don't live on most of the globe.
Cheers,
Ghoti
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,947
- Reactions
- 13,236
See Pielke Jnr's work for the risk adjusted stuff. Risk adjustment is to counter the artifact of increased monetary damage because of greater population etc.
The IPCC themselves see no trend apart from increased heatwaves.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,048
- Reactions
- 12,615
I'll remember that when I pay my house insurance premium which has about doubled in the last few years.
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,586
- Reactions
- 7,466
For those people interested in looking at all the evidence around climate change this article from Climate Central offers some sober news. It seems that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or PDO, is flipping from a cool cycle to a warm rinse (sic) which will amplify the ongoing effects of global warming.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/earth-experiences-global-warming-spurt-19877
The effects of the PDO on global warming can be likened to a staircase, with warming leveling off for periods, typically of more than a decade, and then bursting upward.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/earth-experiences-global-warming-spurt-19877
The effects of the PDO on global warming can be likened to a staircase, with warming leveling off for periods, typically of more than a decade, and then bursting upward.
Even the IPCC are having doubts on Global Warming or Climate Change...They are very confused and have to update and change there reports every 6 or 7 years.
Read the link below and the many comments that follow.
It is now predicted by some that we may have a mini cie age by 2100.
http://grist.org/climate-energy/wtf-is-the-ipcc/
If the IPCC doesn’t produce its own research, why should I care about its assessment report?
Even if you keep up to date on the latest climate research, perhaps even going straight to the source and reading the scientific literature, your knowledge couldn’t match that of the combined understanding of hundreds of collaborating climate scientists. Some research contradicts other research, and it’s the job of these scientists to reconcile those differences.
The IPCC scientists take almost all of the recent climate research, judge it, and synthesize it to produce succinct conclusions about sea-level rise, hurricanes, ocean acidification, and the like in a warming world.
Wait — why did you just say “almost” all of the recent climate research?
New research is being produced all the time, and the IPCC had to draw a line and exclude research produced after a certain date. For this latest report, that date was July 31, 2013.
Are the drafts kept secret?
They’re supposed to be, but some drafts have been leaked, which has fueled controversies and media coverage, some of which has been deliberately misleading. That pisses off those in charge at the IPCC because the drafts inevitably contain statements and projections that will be changed before the final report is released. That’s why they’re called drafts. “The unauthorized and premature posting” of drafts could “lead to confusion,” the IPCC has warned [PDF] — over and over again, as new leaks have sprung.
Why are some climate scientists dissing this report?
Fears abound that the projections included in this latest report, alarming though they may be, will be lowball numbers. While deniers scream that the IPCC is exaggerating the scale of the climate crisis, some climate scientists are saying the report will actually be loaded with understatements.
The New York Times reported earlier this month that scientists’ most extreme projections about sea-level rise appear to have been rejected as “outliers” by Working Group I. But the most conservative, low levels of forecast temperature rise were treated as credible and incorporated into drafts of the report.
Some scientists also question whether these reports, which come out only a couple of times a decade, serve policymakers as well as they could. Now that the basics of climate science are well established and new research is being constantly published, does it make sense to spend years compiling bumper reports? It’s a question that the IPCC is asking itself too. “What sort of products should the IPCC be producing, over what kind of time scale?” IPCC spokesman Jonathan Lynn wondered aloud to a reporter recently. “Do we need this blockbuster report every six or seven years or do we need more frequent reports?”
zlop coolplanet • 2 years ago
"Dr. John Malley, the head of the U.N. Panel on Global Cooling. “The United Nations is issuing an alert to all the countries on the planet. The planet could very well freeze over entirely by 2100"
Thumbnail
- Joined
- 21 June 2009
- Posts
- 5,880
- Reactions
- 14
Are my eyes deceiving me or did I just read the following correctly???
Fwwoooaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrr now we are getting somewhere basilio
But but but there has been no slowdown we are all going to fry and drown and extreme weather event *insert hysterical maniacal laugh here*
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,947
- Reactions
- 13,236
I often wonder what basilio's agenda is, breathlessly regurgitating every Apocalyptic propaganda piece from The Guardian.
More kids to top themselves?
More kids to top themselves?
explod
explod
- Joined
- 4 March 2007
- Posts
- 7,341
- Reactions
- 1,197
Could you elaborate on that?
When not sure how to hold an argument together it seems to bring out a nasty little streak.
And of course the Oil lobbies Murdoch press is much more innocent,, really
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,947
- Reactions
- 13,236
It is interesting that you consider my concern for the mental health of young people affected by unwarranted alarmism as "nasty", particularly as someone close to me has already suicided, citing AGW fears.
Let's examine the record of your Warmunist compadres.... Calling for the imprisonment or execution of sceptics, depicting the blow up of children who are doubtful of the warmist religious sect (the 350.org misanthropic scum) etc
Need I list every example of totalitarian nastiness from your tenuous group of malcontented propagandists?
Puleeeeze!!!!
ghotib
THIMKER
- Joined
- 30 July 2004
- Posts
- 1,057
- Reactions
- 88
That's uncalled for Wayne.
You might disagree with Basilio, or me, or the >90% of practising climate experts who acknowledge the threat that global warming poses to this and future generations of children. But that, as I'm sure you know, doesn't mean you can deny their good will.
I think you owe Basilio an apology.
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,947
- Reactions
- 13,236
Ah so your a card carrying member of the "let's take offense at trifles and demand an apology party".
Yep, when basilio apologizes for his recent ad hom.... But I won't hold my breath.
Double standards methinks.
ghotib
THIMKER
- Joined
- 30 July 2004
- Posts
- 1,057
- Reactions
- 88
The Guardian article that Sir Rumpole referred to is about extreme weather. The Pielke Jr work you're alluding to is about disaster. Not all disasters are the result of extreme weather; one obvious cause unrelated to weather is earthquake. Not all extreme weather leads to disaster. One current example is the above zero temperatures at the North Pole.
Disaster statistics are obviously very important, but they aren't evidence for or against changes in weather events. The 2012 IPCC report "Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX)" http://www.ipcc.ch/report/srex/ deals with the prospects for both in great detail.
Ghoti
ghotib
THIMKER
- Joined
- 30 July 2004
- Posts
- 1,057
- Reactions
- 88
Then thouthinks confusedly. Thine accusation of an agenda to make more kids top themselves, even with a question mark at the end, was no trifle.
I know you're very sore about that poor little girl. Her death is a horrible thing and the grief and anger must sometimes be overwhelming. But you're not alone in that.
Take care.
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,586
- Reactions
- 7,466
The article I quoted from Climate Central discussed the flipping of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. This is another part of the picture on how our climate is affected by a number of factors. In this particular case this factor has been operating to cool the climate (in a significant but limited way) for around 15 years and now seems to be reversing its effect. As noted in the story this could amplify global warming even further in the immediate future
Wayne discussion on this topic begins by saying we should look at the whole picture and then steadfastly refuses to acknowledge any research that doesn't downplay the reality of global warming. The trouble is that almost all the research in the area says the world is becoming hotter, the effects are very dangerous and left unchecked the results will be catastrophic.
The example of producing a narrow off topic set of graphs on disaster effects in response to the article on extreme weather is an example of the this approach. It makes it very hard to give him any credence on this subject.
Wayne discussion on this topic begins by saying we should look at the whole picture and then steadfastly refuses to acknowledge any research that doesn't downplay the reality of global warming. The trouble is that almost all the research in the area says the world is becoming hotter, the effects are very dangerous and left unchecked the results will be catastrophic.
The example of producing a narrow off topic set of graphs on disaster effects in response to the article on extreme weather is an example of the this approach. It makes it very hard to give him any credence on this subject.
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,586
- Reactions
- 7,466
Isn't Noco interesting? The article he quotes from Grist on the IPCC report is an interesting and very useful read on the processes of bringing together all the research on Climate Change and attempting to create a coherent picture at one point in time. Well worth a read - in total. Cherry picking sections is just dishonest.
Yep research does bring up new information Noco. That's why its done.
That's why we know so much more about our climate now than 30 years ago.
That's why climate scientists are even more concerned about our future than ever before.
http://grist.org/climate-energy/wtf-is-the-ipcc/
Yep research does bring up new information Noco. That's why its done.
That's why we know so much more about our climate now than 30 years ago.
That's why climate scientists are even more concerned about our future than ever before.
http://grist.org/climate-energy/wtf-is-the-ipcc/
Tisme
Apathetic at Best
- Joined
- 27 August 2014
- Posts
- 8,954
- Reactions
- 1,152
Too much talk and not enough inaction.
I think we all know things aren't the same as what they have been in our memories.
The most important thing to know is how it's going to impact us positively and negatively. I see the major downside being mass migration as the savages are forced to leave their already desolate cultural homelands and head for fresh turf they can degrade into familiar poverty polis'. A big upside could be a increased vegetation in the arid belts because of higher rainfall?
I think we all know things aren't the same as what they have been in our memories.
The most important thing to know is how it's going to impact us positively and negatively. I see the major downside being mass migration as the savages are forced to leave their already desolate cultural homelands and head for fresh turf they can degrade into familiar poverty polis'. A big upside could be a increased vegetation in the arid belts because of higher rainfall?
Yes and the IPCC and the UN Climate Change committee are very selective in what they use....They will always favor the peer reviewed Alarmists version......Anything which controversial to their thinking is thrown in the trash can...They are not interested in views which do not suit their agenda.
The article I posted indicates just how confused the IPCC are on Global Warming as a lot of their predictions have fallen flat and that is why they have to review their reports downward every 6 or 7 years.
