Climate change another name for Weather

[wayneL]

Replying with ad hominem insults and no argument is an excellent tactic!

But, on topic, yet again you tread the avoidance path: Saying something is "debunked", then say its not about "x" although it's actually based on "x". Saying you want "intelligent debate", and offering tripe.
Why not just stay true to your word and return when there's some new data to ponder. Maybe then you can come with some half decent ad hominem insults to bandy about when you lose your way again.

:sleeping:

 

[numbercruncher]

Victorian Premier John Brumby defended the state's power systems, saying the blackout was the result of catastrophic events during a record heatwave, the likes of which only occurred every 100 or 200 years.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/735999/power-outages-cause-chaos-across-vic


Lots of "rare" weather events these days ....

 

[Pat]

:sleeping:

You got nothing on that one.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

An interesting article regarding the Czech president.
http://www.theage.com.au/world/czech-president-a-climate-change-denier-20090201-7urq.html

 

[spooly74]

Re New Evidence of warming in the Antartic

One derisory blogger from a skeptical website overcomes the analysis of a scientific team whose whole expertise is examining and measuring temperatures.

Well done Wayne. Up to your usual standards.

Certainly seems that way now Basilo.

Serious questions are now being raised over the credibility of the data.

Significant warming of continental West Antarctica in the last 50 years
Authors: Steig E.J, Schneider, D P,

Abstract: We use statistical climate field reconstruction techniques to determine monthly temperature anomalies for the near-surface of the Antarctic ice sheet since 1957. Two independent data sets are used to provide estimates of the spatial covariance patterns of temperature: automatic weather stations and thermal infrared satellite observations. Quality-controlled data from occupied instrumental weather stations are used to determine the amplitude of changes in those covariance patterns through time. We use a modified principal component analyses technique (Steig et al., in review, Nature) to optimize the combination of spatial and temporal information. Verification statistics obtained from subsets of the data demonstrate the resulting reconstructions represent improvements relative to climatological mean values. We find that significant warming has occurred over most of continental West Antarctica. This is an area much larger than previously reported; most studies have concluded that warming is limited to the Antarctic Peninsula. An updated version of the recent temperature reconstruction of Monaghan et al. (2008, JGR) independently confirms our results. Warming in continental West Antarctica in the last 50 years exceeds 0.1 °C/decade, and is strongest in Spring. A possible explanation is an increase in storms in the Amundsen-Bellinghausen sea, resulting in enhanced warm air fluxes to the continent. Increased storminess in this sector is associated with the positive phase of the zonal wave-3 pattern, which independent observations suggest has increased since the 1970s (Raphael, GRL, 2004). The substantial negative sea ice anomalies in the Amundsen-Bellinghausen sea may also play a role. Our results suggest that changes in the wave-3 pattern dominates over (possibly anthropogenic) changes in the Southern Annular Mode in explaining recent Antarctic temperature variability.

The above quoted paper by Monaghan et al. (http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2008/antarctica.jsp) only agrees with warming in West Antartic, and is clear about cooling in the East, and very clear about their models fallibility.

This paper by Steig, introduces new data from 4 weather stations in West Antartic, with the significant warming coming from a station named 'Harry'.

As it now turns out, because of one derisory blogger , the new data from this station is actually a splice of recent 'Harry' data, plus data from another station 'Gill', completly unrelated, and for a time buried in snow!

What a joke.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5054#comments

There is more discussion on the the Nature report on the warming of Antarctica.

The remainder of the discussion is at Real climate.

Unfortunately not anymore Basilo.

Comments have now been closed over at Real Climate, where Eric Steig is a contributor.

Fancy that.

 

[spooly74]

How many times have you heard or read words to the effect that 4000 scientists from the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate change (IPCC) supported the claims about a significant human influence on climate? I think
I've seen it on television, radio and the Internet and I know that politicians at national levels have quoted such
figures. There's no question whatsoever. It's utterly wrong.

In fact, once the duplicated names are removed that number falls below 2,900and if we only want those who
explicitly supported the claims it falls to only about 60. So how does 4,000 become 60 and were they all
qualified and credible scientists? Let's take a closer look at the real numbers.

http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf

 

[Pat]

Perhaps it is wishful thinking humans contribute to CC.
Might give us some sort of sense of control...

 

[Buddy]

:sleeping:

You got nothing on that one.

I was listening to a talk show on the radio yesterday, and the interviewee said, in answer to either a question or statement by the interviewer, something like "What can I say". Now that makes for really good radio, eh? Ha Ha

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I was listening to a talk show on the radio yesterday, and the interviewee said, in answer to either a question or statement by the interviewer, something like "What can I say". Now that makes for really good radio, eh? Ha Ha

Once you hear this mate, the argument is close to overload.

Its started raining again here just now.

gg

 

[Buddy]

Once you hear this mate, the argument is close to overload.

Its started raining again here just now.

gg

I have heard that 9 out of 10 university controlled experiments prove that boats put out less greenhouse gases than cars. I trust you are doing your bit to save the planet.

 

[Knobby22]

Excellent article relating to Adelaides harsh weather conditions that are being experienced and the probability it is due to climate change. And as we have broken the record for the top temperature in Melbourne and had horrid bushfires and tend to get Adelaides weather a day after, this is very relevant.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/02/03/is-there-a-link-between-adelaides-heatwave-and-global-warming/

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

CC or GW are not the cause of the bushfires as some idiots have said.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

CC or GW are not the cause of the bushfires as some idiots have said.

Just like to add that the weather conditions back in 1938 were worse than this year according to the media.

 

[rederob]

Just like to add that the weather conditions back in 1938 were worse than this year according to the media.

Neither the "media" nor the weather bureau would agree with you:

Temperature records smashed across the state
MARIAN WILKINSON ENVIRONMENT EDITOR
10/02/2009 1:00:01 AM

THE heatwave that accompanied the bushfires on Saturday smashed records, as much of Victoria, including Melbourne and 20 other centres, registered unprecedented highs, the Bureau of Meteorology says.

Melbourne reached 46.4 degrees on Saturday, the highest in 154 years of record-keeping, overshooting the previous high set on Black Friday - January 13, 1939 - by 0.8 degrees and far exceeding the temperature on Ash Wednesday in 1983, which was 43.2 degrees.

"We've never seen anything like this in Victoria's history," David Jones, from the bureau's National Climate Centre, said yesterday. "You don't usually break records by much. You might beat it by point one of a degree or point two."

The bureau accurately predicted the heatwave but it forecasters were still in shock yesterday over the loss of life. Soaring temperatures were accompanied by strong winds and very low humidity which created the extreme fire danger.


A review of the weekend temperatures by the bureau found many site records were set on Saturday. Geelong had a record high of 47.4 degrees compared to the old record of 44.8, which was set days earlier.

Nearly 90 per cent of the state recorded the highest February temperatures ever.

 

[spooly74]

Agreed, I think blaming CO2 for this disaster is stretching it a bit.

A couple of articles below point the finger elsewhere.

Council ignored warning over trees before Victoria bushfires

THE shire council covering some of the areas hit hardest by the bushfires was warned five years ago that its policy of encouraging people to grow trees near their homes to give the appearance of a forest would lead to disaster.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25038717-5006785,00.html

Green ideas must take blame for deaths

It wasn't climate change which killed as many as 300 people in Victoria last weekend. It wasn't arsonists. It was the unstoppable intensity of a bushfire, turbo-charged by huge quantities of ground fuel which had been allowed to accumulate over years of drought. It was the power of green ideology over government to oppose attempts to reduce fuel hazards before a megafire erupts, and which prevents landholders from clearing vegetation to protect themselves.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/green-ideas-must-take-blame-for-deaths-20090211-84mk.html

And this from 2003!

http://www.aph.gov.au/HOUSE/committee/bushfires/inquiry/subs/sub290.pdf

 

[So_Cynical]

Agreed, I think blaming CO2 for this disaster is stretching it a bit.

A couple of articles below point the finger elsewhere.

So the local council and the greens are responsible for the extreme weather conditions....yer right.

So does anyone here know what a fire danger indices/rating is?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25027847-2,00.html

UNPRECEDENTED weather conditions made it impossible for authorities to
predict the extent of Victoria's horrific bushfires, experts say.

The fire danger indices, based on a range of variables and used by authorities
and climatologists to determine the intensity of a blaze, reached uncharted
levels on Saturday.

A rating of 100 indicates that a fire would be uncontrollable, according to David
Jones from the Bureau of Meteorology.

On Saturday, it reached 400.

"We've never seen a day like that," Mr Jones, who heads the Bureau's
National Climate Centre, told news.com.au.

While fuel loads are a part of the fire danger rating system...without the unprecedented
weather conditions the fire tsunami just couldn't of happened.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Neither the "media" nor the weather bureau would agree with you:

Hello Red,

Nice to have you comment.

There is no doubt recent records have been broken at the same time of the recent fires. 46.8 at Melbourne airport actually. But we only have to go on what we have. In 1851 there were reports of higher temperatures in the state some sources say Melbourne at 47 degrees.

But what you have failed to realise is that weather conditions do not just inlclude temperature, though convenient when pushing a line of thought. Nothing has been considered of the wind, nor humidity. Higher temperatures may be achievable through lower humidity, so we are comparing apples and pineapples when it comes to one day to the next.

Some sources:

http://www.abc.net.au/blackfriday/royalcommission/index_findings.htm
From the above link on the 1938-39 fires:

Such was the force of the wind that, in many places, hundreds of trees of great size were blown clear of the earth, tons of soil, with embedded masses of rock, still adhering to the roots; for mile upon mile the former forest monarchs were laid in confusion, burnt, torn from the earth, and piled one upon another as matches strewn by a giant hand.

http://www.abc.net.au/blackfriday/aftermath/bwright.htm
From the above link:

On the day of the worst of the bush fires, Black Friday itself - 13th January - the Melbourne temperature reached 45.6 degrees which remains the highest temperature Melbourne has ever had, but there were other very hot days in the preceding week.

There was 43.8 on the 8th of January and then 44.7 on the 10th of January, and just by comparison, Melbourne in the summer of 2002/03 had 44.1 which is the hottest temperature that has occurred since the Black Friday fires.

http://www.chig.asn.au/black_thursday_bushfires_1851.htm
From the above link on the 1851fires:

The 1851 Black Thursday bush fires were when the hills were alight to the Alps themselves - a frightful day as the temperature in Melbourne rose to 47degrees centigrade (110 degrees on the old scale) at 11 am.

So the question is are conditions any different to what has already been experienced in the past?

Clearly they are not. Extended droughts, high temperatures in the 40's and strong winds have been around in the past and will be around in the future.

If anyone has better sources I'd love to see them.
Thanks.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

So the local council and the greens are responsible for the extreme weather conditions....yer right.

So does anyone here know what a fire danger indices/rating is?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25027847-2,00.html



While fuel loads are a part of the fire danger rating system...without the unprecedented
weather conditions the fire tsunami just couldn't of happened.

It's have.

Yes that is true, but fuel is part of the triangle. So take away the fuel and there is nothing to burn.

 

[ghotib]

There is no doubt recent records have been broken at the same time of the recent fires. 46.8 at Melbourne airport actually. But we only have to go on what we have. In 1851 there were reports of higher temperatures in the state some sources say Melbourne at 47 degrees.

But what you have failed to realise is that weather conditions do not just inlclude temperature, though convenient when pushing a line of thought. Nothing has been considered of the wind, nor humidity. Higher temperatures may be achievable through lower humidity, so we are comparing apples and pineapples when it comes to one day to the next.

<snip quotations>

So the question is are conditions any different to what has already been experienced in the past?

Clearly they are not. Extended droughts, high temperatures in the 40's and strong winds have been around in the past and will be around in the future.

If anyone has better sources I'd love to see them.
Thanks.

This is a great illustration of why the title of this whole thread is nonsense, however much fun the argument might be. Weather is not climate. Global warming does not mean that every year will be warmer than the last or that every place in the world will get warmer at the same rate.

One extreme weather event cannot prove or disprove that the climate is changing. Short-term for climate is 10 years. It's a trend thing, and it beats me why trend traders find that so hard to understand. We're not all day traders after all.

The climate prediction for south eastern Australia is that it will become on average hotter and drier. One predicted effect of a warmer global climate is that extreme events will become both more common and more extreme. Put those predictions together and you can expect more bad fire seasons. In between the bad fire seasons, you can expect fewer opportunities for hazard reduction burning, so when the bad seasons comes the fires will be bigger.

Ghoti

 

[Knobby22]

Hello Red,


If anyone has better sources I'd love to see them.
Thanks.

I suggest you read the link I posted yesterday, Snake.