Consider the weather event that occurs, on average, every 200 years. It is correct to say that this weather event has a 0.5% chance of occurring in any given year. So, we only have 150 years of solid scientific data from direct observation. That leaves a full quarter of all 200-year events still to be observed. THIS year, out of every 200 weather reporting stations, one will report a 200-year event. There’s a 25% chance this event has never been observed before, thus this report will constitute an “extreme” event. With most every weather station reporting on ten or fifteen parameters that can have extreme values, I hope we can see where “extreme” events are the norm, rather than the exception.
+6ºF in Atlanta back in January is far away from average. It was an “extreme” event for that particular calender day, it may have been “extreme” for that week, or even that month. Perhaps it won’t ever get cold again the rest of the year !!! However, over the past 150 years, we find a reading of -9ºF. Those headlines from the lamestream media back in January about record breaking cold in Atlanta were there just to sell advertising space, nothing more. The temperature will drop below 0 in Atlanta, this past winter shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone but the mayor [rolls eyes].
I think frequency of extreme weather events due to AGW is overplayed, we have way to much missing data to make any connection at this time.
The issue of risk, insurance cost and the possibly increasing “extreme” events is quite meaningful, and of course of great interest to everyone. Everyone.
Can we all agree that bad weather is something nobody likes, wants or has any control over? I follow the weather issue, it’s very important, the weather. Who doesn’t? There are many conflicting reports and ideas and claims, all kinds about this. Getting to the topic, if the trend is actually cooling, however slight, however lopsided with the seasons, (see OP), it matters in this issue because of what is happening.
If “warming” is the cause of bad weather, and we are not “warming” in the global sense, none of the weather events, or lack of, in a decade, can be blamed on global warming. There is a real issue for the conclusion of the topic question.
If you agree it’s not “global warming” right now, for whatever reason, then causation of “extreme” weather is gone. You could in fact say “the pause” has caused all the weather. As strange as that sounds.
Or the “cooling NH boreal winters” combined with record arctic ice loss has “caused” the weather. Or the “Pacific wind increase and resultant cooling” is the “cause” of the drop in hurricanes. Claiming causation, or blame if you will, is not scientific, if you don’t actually know what is happening! Like trying to “blame” global warming for record cold spells.
If it’s not warming, how can that even be a possibility?
Which leads directly into the scientific questions that follow once you decide what the earth is actually doing.
Iffinitis aguda, and what you casually forget is what the “pause” also means, the warming is still there, it has not reduced to the levels we should see if the human part of it was not there. And then there you forget the ocean warming too, eventually the cycles that are causing the apparent “pause” in the land surface temperatures is much more likely to go up, and it will be added to the human part that is already there.
BTW once again you are wrong about causation; scientists, so far, report that on the whole that global warming amplifies the risk factors for extreme weather events. That is all that climate science claims, claiming that scientists are telling us that the changing climate is **causing **the extreme weather events remains a common strawman.
There may be some evidence out there that could convince scientists that more extreme events like hurricanes and tornadoes are coming, but sticking to the current more supported evidence they can be more confident that more heat waves and heavy precipitation events are reported and coming thanks to a warming world.
Argument is wrong on at least four different levels.
First, still beating the dead horse about “no warming”. Something to do with picking 2002 as the starting year, selecting a magic month, standing on one leg and closing one eye, and you can “see” that it’s cooling! As long as we continue to break and/or tie recent high-temperature records (and we are doing so) the argument is moot and on that basis alone we can expect the destabilization effects to continue and worsen.
Second, we are so far from equilibrium for the current level of CO2 – by hundreds of years even if all anthropogenic emissions stopped tomorrow – that any statement about a sudden onset of climate stability at this point is utterly absurd; one has only to look at the Vostok glaciation records to see that present CO2 levels are off the chart, and CO2 is a long-lived GHG. In the larger scheme of things the climate has barely even begun to respond to the highest level of CO2 in possibly about 15 million years.
Third, no statement about “warming” or alleged lack thereof that measures only land, atmosphere, and observable sea surface temperatures is a valid description of the earth’s energy balance, since on the order of about 95% of the earth’s total heat uptake goes into the oceans. And it’s ultimately changes in that energy balance that constitute the critical driver of climate.
Fourth, the implication that climate instabilities and extreme weather patterns are closely synchronized in time with measured surface temperature trends is nothing short of ludicrous; in the real world, they can be decoupled by hundreds or even thousands of years.
However, it may be that the insurance industry acknowledges that climate change couldn’t possibly be responsible for recent weather extremes, and their actuarial adjustments reflect a belief in the Bad-Weather Tooth Fairy. But that doesn’t seem to be the thinking of Swiss Re, at least, which has published some serious literature about climate change and its impacts.
Do you disagree with the original assumption, or do you see a flaw in my logic?
I have a few questions about your arguments to FX:
First - I covered that in post #12.
Second - Please detail this equilibrium state, do you mean natural warming trends or a purely balanced system?
Third - If we’re measuring the temperature of the atmosphere, then our concern is how much energy is leaving the ocean, and in which form.
Fourth - What is “climate instabilities”?
Miami/Dade County has increased its population by a half million people since that last Category 5 Hurricane made landfall there. It’ll be a horrific disaster there when it happens again. There’s nothing about AGW that makes this the case, Miami/Dade County climate includes the occasional major hurricane (and so does New Jersey).
Can you just present evidence you think makes a difference? Claiming something is easy, showing why you think it is so, is educational.
The debate is over the issue, you don’t get to declare victory, it doesn’t work that way. Rhetoric also isn’t scientific. Calling something a “dead horse” when it is a new topic, and the subject of a debate doesn’t advance your cause at all.
It’s as unhelpful as posting “you are still wrong” or “you were shown to be wrong”, such talk convinces no one.
In essence, many factors were causing climate change then, Plass mentioned volcanoes, sun activity and orbital influences, however as Plass reported not a single one was the main cause of the changes but the human factor was becoming clear, very influential and larger than the natural influences in the early 20th century.
Hey Kimstu, can I use your post in an OP for a new debate topic? I don’t want to clutter up this one with it anymore.
FYI, the title text for the comic is: 'You see the same pattern all over. Take Detroit–
’ ‘Hold on. Why do you know all these statistics offhand?’
‘Oh, um, no idea. I definitely spend my evenings hanging out with friends, and not curating a REALLY NEAT database of temperature statistics.
Because, pshh, who would want to do that, right? Also, snowfall records.’
That’s the title text you get when you mouse over a xkcd comic.
I tend to assume people posting in this thread (itt) are interested in the subject, knowledgeable at least in some regard, and motivated to make points, find answers or at least preach down to the unwashed ignorant with your wisdom and grace. So when I read a statement that does not define, state or even mention what is being talked about, it’s easy to skip over it.
For example, in this post I am responding to the poor writing and lack of focus on content, itt.
What argument? Ignoring the horrific sentence structure “Argument is wrong”, because obviously that isn’t what you mean to say, WHAT argument? I’m sure it’s clear in your head when you type, but nobody else knows what you mean. State it up front, be clear.
That makes it sound like you are still arguing that there has been no cooling, and all the studies, papers and scientific journals seeking to explain the cooling, are all wrong. Is that what you are claiming?
And what do you mean by “the destabilization effects to continue and worsen”? What are you talking about? Seriously, what is “the destabilization effects”? What do you mean by “continue and worsen”? What will? When did it start? How will we know that is has become worse? I’m quite sure you have some idea, some thought when you type that out, but nobody else can know what you are talking about.
That sounds like you are saying there has been little response to the CO2 forcing since 1950 (not my figure), which goes completely against the mainstream view that most of the “warming” has been directly due to human created CO2. Is that what you are trying to say? If so, where are you coming up with that from? What does that mean?
You see how difficult it is to even understand what you are claiming, much less how to respond in any scientific manner? Don’t do what GIGO do, it’s almost impossible to even understand what he is claiming, much less respond. I’m quite willing to respond to almost anything, but it’s like mush, a semi-solid tatseless bowl of undefined claims and terms.
It’s quite reasonable to ignore nonsense in a debate, but I can’t even tell if it’s nonsense due to the poor communication. .
See?
What problem? Don’t say “the problem continues”, say what you think the problem is. Be concise, clear, state things. Do not use words like “it”, “that”, or “the problem” until after you state what you are speaking about.
.
What “problem” continues?
Wrong about WHAT sun spot charts?
Where did I say anything about CO2 not acting as a greenhouse gas? Much less that is hasn’t caused any warming?
You just make up random things, no links, no evidence, and no sense of purpose, other than to repeat, once more., “you are wrong”, with nothing at all in your hand.
To continue, briefly, on the lack of communication.
What radio show? If you post a link to a video or radio show, it’s on you to state what you are trying to claim. Nobody is required to leave the deabte and spend any time at all watching something you link to. If you wached or listened, then you tell us the key points.
Cherry picked WHAT? That is a meaningless claim. There simply is no way to know what you are talking about.
And again, that is a meaningless statement. Even if somebody could fathom what you are trying to talk about, there is no way to respond to it.
What report?
What misunderstanding?
What is “typical” now? The only thing I see as typical is this sort of random meaningless response that tells us nothing but your opinion on something that only you understand.
My showing you a trend from 1950, to show temperatures wasn’t random, nor meaningless. But it was funny.
