Climate Change Denial, Anyone?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Um....since I was a teenager the the average number of named storms in the Atlantic has been raised. An average season used to be 9- 10 storms, now an average season is 12 storms...

Your claim that hurricanes and tornadoes are occurring with less frequency is a claim, with NOTHING to back up said claim.

a reply to: jrod

Despite your very astute observations of frequency and intensity of hurricanes in the Atlantic Basin:

www.gfdl.noaa.gov...

In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm counts over the past 120+ yr support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic. A new modeling study projects a large (~100%) increase in Atlantic category 4-5 hurricanes over the 21st century, but we estimate that this increase may not be detectable until the latter half of the century. Therefore, we conclude that despite statistical correlations between SST and Atlantic hurricane activity in recent decades, it is premature to conclude that human activity–and particularly greenhouse warming–has already caused a detectable change in Atlantic hurricane activity. (“Detectable” here means the change is large enough to be distinguishable from the variability due to natural causes.) However, human activity may have already caused some some changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observation limitations, or are not yet properly modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate). We also conclude that it is likely that climate warming will cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense globally and to have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes. In our view, there are better than even odds that the numbers of very intense (category 4 and 5) hurricanes will increase by a substantial fraction in some basins, while it is likely that the annual number of tropical storms globally will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged. These assessment statements are intended to apply to climate warming of the type projected for the 21st century by IPCC AR4 scenarios, such as A1B. The relatively conservative confidence levels attached to these projections, and the lack of a claim of detectable anthropogenic influence at this time contrasts with the situation for other climate metrics, such as global mean temperature. In the case of global mean surface temperature, the IPCC 5th Assessment Report (2013) presents a strong body of scientific evidence that most of the global warming observed over the past half century is very likely due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.

If you are looking for proof of AGW in the Atlantic as it relates to hurricanes....this isn't it.

In my view, the first sentence says it all:

In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm counts over the past 120+ yr support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic.

Then, because this is the NOAA afterall, and they do have to support the government policy supporting the AGW theory, they go ahead and cite "models" that show projected increases. Even though, they have already concluded that global warming does not lead to increased frequency or intensity, they have to "model" as though it will lead to increased frequency or intensity.

If you can't tell that AGW is a garbage theory, this alone should give you a clue.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

why do you automatically blame global warming for everything.

I do not blame the rise of Donald Trump on global warming.

I am confident that already have google.

Whatever that means.

Why do I have to prove its not global warming.

You’re not doing a very good job of it, are you?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Individual weather events cannot be used as sign of global warming.

The pattern of individual weather events can be so used in a proper statistical analysis, and the results support the rest of the observations about global warming.

Then, because this is the NOAA afterall, and they do have to support the government policy supporting the AGW theory, they go ahead and cite "models" that show projected increases. Even though, they have already concluded that global warming does not lead to increased frequency or intensity, they have to "model" as though it will lead to increased frequency or intensity.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Did you read the thing you even quoted? The scientists do not project an increase in number, but they do project an increase in intensity of the most destructive storms.

Your rant doesn't make any sense.

a reply to: mbkennel

Did you not read the quote from the publication? Its says NO increase in number of storms or even intensity.

I was writing a litany of all the scare stories we have been told in the past 40 years. Did you not recognise it?

a reply to: Astyanax

I said "Do you not have google on your computer". Can you not google weather events before you decide its not global warming?

You have not done a good job into scaring me into believing its global warming, using current weather events.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: mbkennel

Really - prove the bit about statistical analysis to predict the weather in the "future".

Every prediction so far has failed.

Wasn't the Artic supposed to be ice-free by now?

And others too numerous to mention

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: mbkennel

Really - prove the bit about statistical analysis to predict the weather in the "future".

Every prediction so far has failed.

The primary predictions are "global warming", "increased greenhouse effect", "acidifying ocean".

All came true.

a reply to: mbkennel

that does not answer the question. The question was about the statistics to prove individual weather events
"tend to support" global warming (In your words).

Ps. pH 8.1 is NOT acidification. Its within the realm of natural variability and its alkaline not acid. And prove "increased greenhouse effect"

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Greven

And if you park your car under trees???

You haven't even looked at the role of clouds in all of this mess.


Further, look at the history of Irish climate change...


irishenergyblog.blogspot.ca...


Do you notice a similiarity to the history of climate change at all. That climate patterns change....from cool to hot and back again with astonishing regularity?

Sure, clouds reflect a good amount of incoming shortwave radiation.

They also reflect a good amount of infrared radiation emitted by the Earth back downwards.

Their impact is mixed.

a reply to: Greven

Actually, its not that simple. Clouds are actually very complex. Thin, high clouds tend to cause cooling. Low thick clouds tend to cause heating. Didn't I just read that high, thin clouds are accumulating in the tropics? And low thick clouds are accumulating in the poles?

Its all very complex and to be honest, it is clear that some forcings are missing from the climate models (clouds, ocean currents)

And its likely that the role of ocean currents (some of which, like the PDO were only discovered in the mid-1990s, long after climate alarmism began)

Tired of Control

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Greven

Actually, its not that simple. Clouds are actually very complex. Thin, high clouds tend to cause cooling. Low thick clouds tend to cause heating. Didn't I just read that high, thin clouds are accumulating in the tropics? And low thick clouds are accumulating in the poles?

Its all very complex and to be honest, it is clear that some forcings are missing from the climate models (clouds, ocean currents)

And its likely that the role of ocean currents (some of which, like the PDO were only discovered in the mid-1990s, long after climate alarmism began)

Uh-huh.

I'm still wondering how this invalidates the opaqueness of carbon dioxide to various wavelengths of radiation.

a reply to: Greven

And I am still waiting for Artic ice to melt. I guess we all have our crosses to bear.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I said "Do you not have google on your computer". Can you not google weather events before you decide its not global warming?

No you posted gobbledygook. Go and look for youself.

I mean real gobbledygook, rather than the mere rubbish you were posting earlier

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Responding to you is like pissing in the wind, but here you go.

insideclimatenews.org...

While satellite images of the Arctic clearly show that sea ice in the region has been on a steady decline since those images began in 1979, the relatively short span of that history has been seized on by some climate denialists to discount its significance in concluding humans are warming the planet.

Now, scientists have compiled the most detailed study to date of sea ice records going back more than a century and a half. The data shows that the rapid meltdown that satellites have been documenting since 1979 is unprecedented since at least 1850 and coincides with the buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels.

Arctic sea ice has not been at levels as low as today's for at least 5,000 to 7,000 years, according Julienne Stroeve, a researcher with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) who was not involved in the study. "It may have been sometime during the mid-Holocene, based on driftwood found in Greenland that came from Siberia," she said. "Some other studies have suggested at least 800,000 years."

Here's another scientist shooting down a denier that you can ignore.

a reply to: cuckooold

have you read of the Voyage of the Nansen in 1893?

In 1893, in a wooden boat, Nansen almost reached the North Pole

en.wikipedia.org...

___________________________________________________________

Look this thread started because the OP wanted to use individual weather events to "prove" that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is real.

In 34 pages, I have not heard even one CAGW supporter admit that individual weather events cannot be used to either prove or disprove CAGW, even though you all pretend to be experts,

You may all have more scientific knowledge then me. I don't know. But you are all demonstrating that you are willing to accept untruths (lies) in your pursuit of being right.

This makes all of you, unreliable and untrustworty. Not one of you had the courtesy to speak a very very simple truth. That individual weather events cannot prove or disprove CAGW.

Worst, you have attacked me for daring to speak this simple truth.

You have amply demonstrated that truth is NOT part of your agenda. Why would anyone believe you now?

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
...
In 34 pages, I have not heard even one CAGW supporter admit that individual weather events cannot be used to either prove or disprove CAGW, even though you all pretend to be experts,

You may all have more scientific knowledge then me. I don't know. But you are all demonstrating that you are willing to accept untruths (lies) in your pursuit of being right.

This makes all of you, unreliable and untrustworty. Not one of you had the courtesy to speak a very very simple truth. That individual weather events cannot prove or disprove CAGW.

Worst, you have attacked me for daring to speak this simple truth.

You have amply demonstrated that truth is NOT part of your agenda. Why would anyone believe you now?

Tired of Control Freaks

Haven't you realized it yet? The AGW camp seem to be nothing but control freaks. They are afraid to admit mankind cannot control the climate, and neither does CO2 even when the evidence clearly shows this. They rather ignore the facts, even when scientists like Michael Mann have admitted that there has been a warming pause, or hiatus, despite the fact that CO2 levels have kept increasing.

These same people love to ignore other changes occurring on Earth which affect climate change... Heck, 2015-2016 Super El Niño is the cause for the most recent warming, yet the AGW camp keep trying to blame CO2 when ENSO events are affected by changes in the sun, and changes to Earth's magnetic field, which we have also been experiencing since about the 1840s.

The AGW NEED to "believe" that it must be mankind causing climate change because they need to believe to have control over the climate.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Agreed ElectricUniverse. They didn't even comment on the Great Barrier Reef fraud.

As always, I remain.....

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Who profits from the 'Great Barrier Reef fraud'? Surfers?