Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Extreme Weather?
64 Answers
It has been suggested that recent hurricanes achieving land-fall on the east coats of the USA and the flooding of properties up and down the UK are evidence of man-made climate change. Is the weather getting more 'extreme' or are there other factors at work?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by birdie1971. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Vulcan42 -
That's the rub isn't it?
Apparently when the weather does something that brings AGW into doubt, the cry from the warming fraternity is always – “Weather doesn't equal climate! Climate operates on geological time-scales. Weather is hugely variable and doesn't indicate future climate patterns.”. Conversely, when the weather does something that appears to support AGW, their cry is “See! I told you it was real. The weather is getting more extreme – just as we predicted!”
The truly tragic thing about this is that the warming fraternity don't seem to be able to see the glaring obvious double standard.
That's the rub isn't it?
Apparently when the weather does something that brings AGW into doubt, the cry from the warming fraternity is always – “Weather doesn't equal climate! Climate operates on geological time-scales. Weather is hugely variable and doesn't indicate future climate patterns.”. Conversely, when the weather does something that appears to support AGW, their cry is “See! I told you it was real. The weather is getting more extreme – just as we predicted!”
The truly tragic thing about this is that the warming fraternity don't seem to be able to see the glaring obvious double standard.
birdie //Do you know what's completely pathetic about your own post Beso? It is the fact that you couldn't find a link that supports the real myth that sea levels are rising in the Seychelles region. //
Rubbish.
Here is the sea level data showing an average of over 3 mm per year rise
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Here is the variation maps which shows the Seychelles (off the East African coast above Madagascar) have experienced about average rise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_map_showing_where_average_sea_level_in_2011_was_above_or_below_the_long-term_average_(1993-2011)_(NOAA).jpg
The onus is on you to support your claim that The Seychelles has not experienced even one millimetre of rise.
Indeed it is interesting that you chose The Seychelles as your argument. Why that place?
Because you and many other denialists read pages like this:
http://wiomsa.net/blog/?p=1120
Or this
http://natureseychelles.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=391:no-sea-level-rise-around-seychelles-and-zanzibar&catid=38&Itemid=63
and no doubt others all based on lines cherry picked from this one paper:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n8/full/ngeo901.html
As you can see this paper and other work by the same authors is far from dismissing widespread sea level rise.
Your claim that sea levels are not rising puts you into the category of extreme deniers who are so committed to their faith that they are utterly incapable of acknowledging the reality.
Most deniers don't have the sheer arrogance to deny the obvious facts and have move on to pretending that climate change is a good thing.
Rubbish.
Here is the sea level data showing an average of over 3 mm per year rise
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Here is the variation maps which shows the Seychelles (off the East African coast above Madagascar) have experienced about average rise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_map_showing_where_average_sea_level_in_2011_was_above_or_below_the_long-term_average_(1993-2011)_(NOAA).jpg
The onus is on you to support your claim that The Seychelles has not experienced even one millimetre of rise.
Indeed it is interesting that you chose The Seychelles as your argument. Why that place?
Because you and many other denialists read pages like this:
http://wiomsa.net/blog/?p=1120
Or this
http://natureseychelles.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=391:no-sea-level-rise-around-seychelles-and-zanzibar&catid=38&Itemid=63
and no doubt others all based on lines cherry picked from this one paper:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n8/full/ngeo901.html
As you can see this paper and other work by the same authors is far from dismissing widespread sea level rise.
Your claim that sea levels are not rising puts you into the category of extreme deniers who are so committed to their faith that they are utterly incapable of acknowledging the reality.
Most deniers don't have the sheer arrogance to deny the obvious facts and have move on to pretending that climate change is a good thing.
birdie //Apparently when the weather does something that brings AGW into doubt, the cry from the warming fraternity is always – “Weather doesn't equal climate!" Conversely, when the weather does something that appears to support AGW, their cry is “See! I told you it was real. The weather is getting more extreme – just as we predicted!” //
Some elements in the media certainly do that. However serious scientists work with the averages over longer periods.
We continue to post records for heat in many places. This year the US had it worst drought and the biggest storm in its recorded history. Parts of Southern Australia have just set new temperature records.
Arctic temperatures are regularly four degrees above the long term averages. Vast areas of sea ice have been lost. The rate of decline is rapidly increasing and exceeds the projections in all the models used by the IPCC.
http://www.ualberta.ca/~eec/Stroeve2007.pdf
How about you post some links?
Some elements in the media certainly do that. However serious scientists work with the averages over longer periods.
We continue to post records for heat in many places. This year the US had it worst drought and the biggest storm in its recorded history. Parts of Southern Australia have just set new temperature records.
Arctic temperatures are regularly four degrees above the long term averages. Vast areas of sea ice have been lost. The rate of decline is rapidly increasing and exceeds the projections in all the models used by the IPCC.
http://www.ualberta.ca/~eec/Stroeve2007.pdf
How about you post some links?
Beso “.... The onus is on you to support your claim that The Seychelles has not experienced even one millimetre of rise...”
Is it? How does that work then? I say that nothing has changed. Then it is apparently my responsibility to prove that nothing has changed despite the fact that people like you are constantly (and falsely) claiming that we have a massive problem on our hands. Once again you invoke the 'heads I win, tails you lose' maxim. Sad.
You then go on to falsely claim (which seems to be a common theme in your posts) that I read the blogs that you've linked. I've never read a single one of them. Nor was I aware of their existence until you posted the links.
You then tiresomely (and falsely – again) claim that, “... Your claim that sea levels are not rising puts you into the category of extreme deniers who are so committed to their faith that they are utterly incapable of acknowledging the reality...”
Sad. Really sad. You even scrape the bottom of the barrel by saying, “... How about you post some links?...”. To what? None existent scientific papers that say there hasn't been sea level rise in the Seychelles? No one writes a paper saying that nothing has changed. Get a grip for crying out loud.
Luckily there is a remedy to your tirade of falsehoods. I'm sure you're heard of a website called 'Watts Up With That?”. I'm also sure you disapprove of its message and I'm also sure that's a massive understatement. I'd love to see you trying to debate on that website. They'd make absolute mincemeat out of your tired and hackneyed arguments. They've also helpfully posted up this page which makes very interesting reading...
http://goo.gl/P5Rd9
Is it? How does that work then? I say that nothing has changed. Then it is apparently my responsibility to prove that nothing has changed despite the fact that people like you are constantly (and falsely) claiming that we have a massive problem on our hands. Once again you invoke the 'heads I win, tails you lose' maxim. Sad.
You then go on to falsely claim (which seems to be a common theme in your posts) that I read the blogs that you've linked. I've never read a single one of them. Nor was I aware of their existence until you posted the links.
You then tiresomely (and falsely – again) claim that, “... Your claim that sea levels are not rising puts you into the category of extreme deniers who are so committed to their faith that they are utterly incapable of acknowledging the reality...”
Sad. Really sad. You even scrape the bottom of the barrel by saying, “... How about you post some links?...”. To what? None existent scientific papers that say there hasn't been sea level rise in the Seychelles? No one writes a paper saying that nothing has changed. Get a grip for crying out loud.
Luckily there is a remedy to your tirade of falsehoods. I'm sure you're heard of a website called 'Watts Up With That?”. I'm also sure you disapprove of its message and I'm also sure that's a massive understatement. I'd love to see you trying to debate on that website. They'd make absolute mincemeat out of your tired and hackneyed arguments. They've also helpfully posted up this page which makes very interesting reading...
http://goo.gl/P5Rd9
I posted links data that showed the sea level has risen at The Seychelles.
You have claimed it hasn't risen one millimetre. No do tell us where you got that information and why in particular you specifically chose to mention The Seychelles.
If you can't then you clearly made it up but it is pretty obvious you got it one way or another from the paper I linked and you won't admit it.
I have looked at that tiresome website you linked. Let's take for example their first link in the text to "the globe hasn't warmed". Here we have a bunch of graphs with no explanation.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-weather-climate/global-temperature/
A whole lot of graphs might impress the ignorant. Moreover these graphs refute the claim and actually show the increase!
No doubt they will point to the stratospheric temperature drop graph. This graph does not support their case at all. Stratospheric temperatures have fallen as the planet warms because the Greenhouse Gases in the troposphere are keeping the heat down at the ground level.
There is nothing there that makes a single valid claim. It is clear that you don't even understand the information.
You have claimed it hasn't risen one millimetre. No do tell us where you got that information and why in particular you specifically chose to mention The Seychelles.
If you can't then you clearly made it up but it is pretty obvious you got it one way or another from the paper I linked and you won't admit it.
I have looked at that tiresome website you linked. Let's take for example their first link in the text to "the globe hasn't warmed". Here we have a bunch of graphs with no explanation.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-weather-climate/global-temperature/
A whole lot of graphs might impress the ignorant. Moreover these graphs refute the claim and actually show the increase!
No doubt they will point to the stratospheric temperature drop graph. This graph does not support their case at all. Stratospheric temperatures have fallen as the planet warms because the Greenhouse Gases in the troposphere are keeping the heat down at the ground level.
There is nothing there that makes a single valid claim. It is clear that you don't even understand the information.
AGW....blah blah blah .... catastrophic sea level rises .... blah blah blah, global warming ..... blah blah blah ...... hockey stick graphs .... blah blah blah ...... deniers .... blah blah blah ... co2 sceptics ....blah blah blah .... BEATS HEAD OFF BRICK WALL!!!
Has anyone proved yet, beyond all reasonable doubt that Birdie 1971 and Beso are sockpuppets arguing with themselves because no-one has conclusivley confirmed AGW, there's some serious "head up backside" science going on here!!!
Has anyone proved yet, beyond all reasonable doubt that Birdie 1971 and Beso are sockpuppets arguing with themselves because no-one has conclusivley confirmed AGW, there's some serious "head up backside" science going on here!!!
why?? because I and others have tried reasoned debating before and not only do you fail to understand scientific principles and how one hypothesis can contradict another even within the scope of your regurgitation of other peoples work but you simply fail to respect there can be alternative hypothesis on any of the multitudiness theories out there. Unless you are able to respect the fact that there are different views then the debate is impossible to start never mind resolve.
At least in work I can discuss this from an expert perspective with other experts and respect the views of the other scientists and colleagues who continue to understand the questions.
At least in work I can discuss this from an expert perspective with other experts and respect the views of the other scientists and colleagues who continue to understand the questions.
I do respect that there can be other hypotheses. However none of those put forward in opposition of AGW theory can sustain reasonable scientific analysis.
Moreover birde is actually denying observable facts about the sea level rise and temperature increases. These facts should not need debating.
There is some room for debate over whether these changes are caused by human activities but the AWG case is very strong.
Moreover birde is actually denying observable facts about the sea level rise and temperature increases. These facts should not need debating.
There is some room for debate over whether these changes are caused by human activities but the AWG case is very strong.
Beso -
From your above link to a paper entitled, “Patterns of Indian Ocean sea-level change in a warming climate.” there is this quote, “... We find that sea level has decreased substantially in the south tropical Indian Ocean whereas it has increased elsewhere. This pattern is driven by changing surface winds associated with a combined invigoration of the Indian Ocean Hadley and Walker cells, patterns of atmospheric overturning circulation in the north–south and east–west direction, respectively, which is partly attributable to rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases. We conclude that—if ongoing anthropogenic warming dominates natural variability—the pattern we detected is likely to persist and to increase the environmental stress on some coasts and islands in the Indian Ocean.”
You introduce the above paper by saying “... Arctic temperatures are regularly four degrees above the long term averages. Vast areas of sea ice have been lost. The rate of decline is rapidly increasing and exceeds the projections in all the models used by the IPCC...”
Since the paper is behind a pay-wall, I cannot read it and I suspect, neither have you. However, in the small extract I have repeated here you seem to failed to have noticed a little word in the last sentence. The word is 'if' and it is hugely important.
From your above link to a paper entitled, “Patterns of Indian Ocean sea-level change in a warming climate.” there is this quote, “... We find that sea level has decreased substantially in the south tropical Indian Ocean whereas it has increased elsewhere. This pattern is driven by changing surface winds associated with a combined invigoration of the Indian Ocean Hadley and Walker cells, patterns of atmospheric overturning circulation in the north–south and east–west direction, respectively, which is partly attributable to rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases. We conclude that—if ongoing anthropogenic warming dominates natural variability—the pattern we detected is likely to persist and to increase the environmental stress on some coasts and islands in the Indian Ocean.”
You introduce the above paper by saying “... Arctic temperatures are regularly four degrees above the long term averages. Vast areas of sea ice have been lost. The rate of decline is rapidly increasing and exceeds the projections in all the models used by the IPCC...”
Since the paper is behind a pay-wall, I cannot read it and I suspect, neither have you. However, in the small extract I have repeated here you seem to failed to have noticed a little word in the last sentence. The word is 'if' and it is hugely important.
Beso - “... I posted links data that showed the sea level has risen at The Seychelles. You have claimed it hasn't risen one millimetre. No do tell us where you got that information and why in particular you specifically chose to mention The Seychelles...”
First, you haven't posted data that shows the sea levels have risen in the Seychelles region – you have posted a link to a paper behind a pay-wall that may or may not support your claim. You have not posted data. Of course, if you're referring to your earlier Wikipedia post then as others have rightly pointed out, the graphic only covers an 18 year period. Not exactly climate is it?
Then you get desperate. You say, “... I have looked at that tiresome website you linked... a bunch of graphs with no explanation... a whole lot of graphs might impress the ignorant... it is clear that you don't even understand the information...”
Oh dear. Now you're being rather foolish. If your blood pressure can take having another look at website that so clearly disgusts you, you'll see that each graph you claim has no explanation is in fact referenced quite explicitly at the bottom of the page. Maybe you missed it in your indignation.
First, you haven't posted data that shows the sea levels have risen in the Seychelles region – you have posted a link to a paper behind a pay-wall that may or may not support your claim. You have not posted data. Of course, if you're referring to your earlier Wikipedia post then as others have rightly pointed out, the graphic only covers an 18 year period. Not exactly climate is it?
Then you get desperate. You say, “... I have looked at that tiresome website you linked... a bunch of graphs with no explanation... a whole lot of graphs might impress the ignorant... it is clear that you don't even understand the information...”
Oh dear. Now you're being rather foolish. If your blood pressure can take having another look at website that so clearly disgusts you, you'll see that each graph you claim has no explanation is in fact referenced quite explicitly at the bottom of the page. Maybe you missed it in your indignation.
Beso - “... The evidence is conclusive. AWG is real...”.
It may be real or it may not. But you're missing the point. Let's assume for a minute that AWG is real. The key question is whether it poses a very real and immediate threat to humanity and other species. All the evidence thus far suggests that self-righteous doom mongers such as yourself are wrong. When you go on about the effects on our children and our grand children and liken AGW to the Chixilub Impact, you sound desperate and distinctly alarmist.
You continue, “... That site you posted is too big a target as I have already shown by demonstrating the fallacy of a randomly chosen link. Pick some aspect you presume you can intelligently defend and I will comprehensively demolish it for you...”
If you're so sure of yourself why don't you debate directly with those who frequent “Watts Up With That”? See how well your arguments hold up there if you dare.
It may be real or it may not. But you're missing the point. Let's assume for a minute that AWG is real. The key question is whether it poses a very real and immediate threat to humanity and other species. All the evidence thus far suggests that self-righteous doom mongers such as yourself are wrong. When you go on about the effects on our children and our grand children and liken AGW to the Chixilub Impact, you sound desperate and distinctly alarmist.
You continue, “... That site you posted is too big a target as I have already shown by demonstrating the fallacy of a randomly chosen link. Pick some aspect you presume you can intelligently defend and I will comprehensively demolish it for you...”
If you're so sure of yourself why don't you debate directly with those who frequent “Watts Up With That”? See how well your arguments hold up there if you dare.
Beso - “... birde is actually denying observable facts about the sea level rise and temperature increases. These facts should not need debating... There is some room for debate over whether these changes are caused by human activities but the AWG case is very strong...”
Finally – you admit that all of this may be due to natural variability. Wonders will never cease.
Finally – you admit that all of this may be due to natural variability. Wonders will never cease.
birdie //The key question is whether [global warming] poses a very real and immediate threat to humanity and other species. //
Once again you show no concern for the people of the future. If it isn't going to affect you much it doesn't really matter. People with this attitude are incredibly greedy and selfish.
This is the crux of the issue. The temperature rise is slow (about 0.15 degrees C per decade). The sea level rise is also slow (about 3.1 mm per year). Ocean acidification is slow.
It will be many years before these changes really start to bite hard. However the science indicates they will be irreversible and accelerating due to positive feedback. The cost of amelioration will be astronomical.
You are squandering future of billions of people because you refuse to spend relatively small amounts of money to move in the direction of sustainability.
Once again you show no concern for the people of the future. If it isn't going to affect you much it doesn't really matter. People with this attitude are incredibly greedy and selfish.
This is the crux of the issue. The temperature rise is slow (about 0.15 degrees C per decade). The sea level rise is also slow (about 3.1 mm per year). Ocean acidification is slow.
It will be many years before these changes really start to bite hard. However the science indicates they will be irreversible and accelerating due to positive feedback. The cost of amelioration will be astronomical.
You are squandering future of billions of people because you refuse to spend relatively small amounts of money to move in the direction of sustainability.
birdie // Finally – you admit that all of this may be due to natural variability. Wonders will never cease. //
I did not say that. I said there was room for debate. It can be debated because it requires interpretation of the science not simply outright measurement.
The vast majority of scientists have settled the debate and accept that it is caused by human activity.
The point I was making is that you refuse to even accept the measurements around which there should be no debate.
It makes you an extreme denialist and indicates the level of your ignorance and arrogance.
I did not say that. I said there was room for debate. It can be debated because it requires interpretation of the science not simply outright measurement.
The vast majority of scientists have settled the debate and accept that it is caused by human activity.
The point I was making is that you refuse to even accept the measurements around which there should be no debate.
It makes you an extreme denialist and indicates the level of your ignorance and arrogance.
Beso - “... Once again you show no concern for the people of the future. If it isn't going to affect you much it doesn't really matter. People with this attitude are incredibly greedy and selfish...”
On the contrary, I have great concern for the peoples of the future. I just don't swallow your extreme AGW apocalyptic doctrine.
You continue, “... You are squandering future of billions of people because you refuse to spend relatively small amounts of money to move in the direction of sustainability...”
What on earth are you talking about? How am I squandering future billions? You know almost nothing about me and even less about what I spend or don't spend my money on. And you have the gall to call me arrogant?
Pathetic Beso. Truly pathetic and nauseatingly obnoxious. But par for the course for a rabid self-righteous fundamentalist eco-loon like yourself.
On the contrary, I have great concern for the peoples of the future. I just don't swallow your extreme AGW apocalyptic doctrine.
You continue, “... You are squandering future of billions of people because you refuse to spend relatively small amounts of money to move in the direction of sustainability...”
What on earth are you talking about? How am I squandering future billions? You know almost nothing about me and even less about what I spend or don't spend my money on. And you have the gall to call me arrogant?
Pathetic Beso. Truly pathetic and nauseatingly obnoxious. But par for the course for a rabid self-righteous fundamentalist eco-loon like yourself.
Latest Posts
News14 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles17 mins ago
Crosswords33 mins ago
'They' Is Irritating Me Immensely
ChatterBank38 mins ago
ChatterBank64 mins ago
