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.
Nice triple backflip with a half twist on the logic there bas.
In your world the Guardian seems to have supplanted data. Data regarding extreme weather events is not off topic on a discussion on extreme weather events now is it.
Speaking of credence, I don't think a left wrong propaganda rag has any.
Data is king.
The governor of California has declared a state of emergency in a suburb of Los Angeles over the leaking of methane gas from an underground storage field.
Jerry Brown ordered "all necessary and viable actions" be taken to stop it.
More than 2,000 families have been moved from their homes and many people have reported feeling ill because of the leakage, which began in October.
It stems from a vast underground storage field in Porter Ranch, on the outskirts of Los Angeles.
Gas is spewing into the atmosphere at a rate so fast that the well now accounts for about a quarter of the state's total emissions of methane - an extremely potent greenhouse gas.
Data is King Wayne? Is that like Black is White. Lies are Truth, Deniers are truthists, Climate is always Changing, Bolt is Right. Monckton is God, Watt is his right hand man?
Give us break. Your are transparently BS. The only data you accept is waffle that is has been lovingly massaged or totally miscreated by the narrow band of people who will not accept the climate is changing radically and will continue to do so unless quite drastic measures are taken.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Nah just long observation of your behaviour Wayne.
Is this how it goes now in this thread? Basilio gets called out for posting propaganda, gets angry and then plays the the man?
Well, I guess that's how your poster boys do it.
The IPCC claims that global warming will result in more severe weather. This doesn't make any sense, as most storms are caused by a difference in temperatures of colliding air masses. If CO2 warms the Polar Regions there will be smaller temperature differences, and less severe storms. All other things being equal, a warmer world should have fewer, not more, severe storms.
Unlike most storms, hurricanes are caused by difference in temperatures between the sea surface and the storm top.
Researchers Knutson and Tuleya examined a suite of climate models and found that they virtually unanimously projected that in a CO2-enhanced world, the middle and upper troposphere will warm at a faster rate than the surface, especially over the tropical oceans. More warming aloft than at the surface makes the atmosphere more stable and less conducive to storm formation. Thus, Knutson and Tuleya reported that the model-projected vertical stability increases in the future would temper (but not totally cancel out) the increase in storm intensity by rising sea surface temperature.
However, researchers Vecchi and Soden found that the climate models almost unanimously project that there will be an increase in the vertical wind shear during the hurricane season which also acts to inhibit tropical cyclone formation. The combined result is that any increase in hurricane intensity will be so small as to be undetectable. Incidentally, the actual vertical wind shear of Atlantic hurricanes have been declining since 1973, the opposite of the trend predicted by the climate models. See here.
There is absolutely no evidence of increasing severe storm events in the real world data.
For the North Atlantic as a whole, according to the World Meteorological Organization, "Reliable data ... since the 1940s indicate that the peak strength of the strongest hurricanes has not changed, and the mean maximum intensity of all hurricanes has decreased."
Gulev, et al (2000) employed NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data since 1958 to study the occurrence of winter storms over the northern hemisphere. They found a statistically significant (at the 95% level) decline of 1.2 cyclones per year for the period, during which temperatures reportedly rose in much of the hemisphere.
"Global warming causes increased storminess" makes for interesting headlines. It also violates fundamental scientific truth and the lessons of history.
So let me get this straight. I have NFI, but you are the suppository (sic) ofclimate knowlege?No mate. I'm not playing the man. I'm sure your a fine specimen of human being, a great father, kind to dumb animals etc.
It's just you have NFI of what constitutes all the information in the discussions on climate change. On top of that you repeatedly refuse to accept any data that doesn't follow your line that there is nothing significant to worry about with global warming.
But I'm sure your a great guy...
____________________________________________________
But this is just a boring waste of time. I'm over you Wayne.
Commodities | Fri May 9, 2008 6:44pm BST
Related: Environment
Global cooling theories put scientists on guard
LONDON | By Gerard Wynn
A new study suggesting a possible lull in manmade global warming has raised fears of a reduced urgency to battle climate change.
...the Nature paper has sparked worries that briefly cooler temperatures may take the heat out of action to fight the threat of more droughts and floods, while a debate about the article's findings has also underlined uncertainty about such forecasting.
Most scientists oppose the minority that has used the present lull in warming to cast doubt on the size of threat from manmade global temperature rises.
"Let's say there wasn't much of a warming for the next 10 years, how will the public and politicians play this out?" said Bob Watson, former IPCC head and current chief scientific adviser to Britain's environment ministry.
DOUBT
The reaction to the Nature paper has underlined uncertainty about climate forecasting, as well as the fact that a minority of global warming doubters has not gone away.
.
...Meanwhile six climate scientists offered on Thursday to bet 5,000 euros ($7,730) that the Nature article's forecast of cooling or no warming globally from 2000-2015 was wrong.
"We think not -- and we are prepared to bet serious money on this," say the scientists, led by Stefan Rahmstorf, professor of physics of the oceans at Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, in a comment posted at realclimate.org/
The original Nature article's lead author, Leibniz Institute's Noel Keenlyside, acknowledged on Friday that recent data showed much more warming that he had forecast through 2007, but stood by a "stabilization" of temperatures from 2005-2015.
He blamed shifts in ocean currents and temperatures, thought also to be the cause of the plateau in temperatures since 1998.
Gary Yohe, climate scientist at Wesleyan University in Connecticut, said that opponents of tougher action on global warming in the United States had seized on the Nature report as a sign that climate change was slowing down.
Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist", said a slowdown in warming might help governments focus on smarter, long-term solutions rather than being panicked into action.
Can you elaborate on the point you are trying to make.
A climate scientist made a prediction about projected temperatures in 2007 in a peer reviewed paper. He said temperatures would hold or possibly reduce by 2015.
Who (would have) won the 5000 Euro bet on the result ? What do the figures say ? What did Watts, Curry and co say (if anything ) ?
....and just by way of a point of order, both basilio and ghotib blithely quote the "> 90% of scientists agree" mantra, presumably from Cook's discredited survey. In fact there is no such consensus as detailed in a later more honestly constructed survey.
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/le...-scientists-agree-with-the-ipcc-95-certainty/
Read it and weep.
....and just by way of a point of order, both basilio and ghotib blithely quote the "> 90% of scientists agree" mantra, presumably from Cook's discredited survey. In fact there is no such consensus as detailed in a later more honestly constructed survey.
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/le...-scientists-agree-with-the-ipcc-95-certainty/
Read it and weep.
Him being correct would be contingent on the warm trend continuing. ? We'll need a few years to see if that plays out. But so far he's looking good.
But I don't know what that proves???
Is this another Black is White statement Wayne ? The climate scientist said global temperatures would hold or fall between 2007 and 2015.
Well they havn't of course so the bet was well and truly lost.
Just more (inconvenient) data Wayne.
Just like the 97%?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?