Cancun sun speeds decay of global warming charade

[lukin]

are you prepared to withdraw your accusation of multiple account handles - or have you identified your concerns to the board administrators? Please advise on how I should proceed in approaching MLW board administration - thanks in advance.

OH Please, please waldo...I'm begging...don't TELL on me! PLEASE don't TELL on me!

Edited December 10, 2010 by lukin

[lukin]

Oh,this will be interesting....

Ya' see..Luky will now either:

1.Admit he's been talking out of his anal orifice

2.I suspect we'll see the usual "duck and dodge".

What's your guess?

The above comment brought to you by Jack Weber, the lonely, desperate man who calls his screen saver his wife.

[Jack Weber]

The above comment brought to you by Jack Weber, the lonely, desperate man who calls his screen saver his wife.

So..

It's the "duck and dodge"?

[lukin]

So..

It's the "duck and dodge"?

I'll be glad to open a whole new can of worms. You like worms, jack?

I know it sucks to be lonely , jack. But you have to ask yourself why you are in that situation. Then and only then will you discover true happiness.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I admire your patience with these ingenious arguments:

"The weather outside my window tells a different story!"

"How come my crop yields are so good recently?"

"Al Gore!"

"The Left!"

Meh I've spent time on Youtube arguing with creationists, this is nothing. Though the parallels in the debating styles are stunning. There are 2 other groups I know of that debate like creationists AGW deniers/skeptics and hardcore vegan animal rights activists.

Now I bet you blueblood doesn't respond, and neither does timmy though he may respond to this.

Frankly, I am sick and tired of alarmist hypocrites whining when someone claims that a cold snap means there is no global warming when they run around screaming that every example of hot/exteme weather is evidence of climate change.

See the thing here is many weather phenomenon are predicted by climate change, hurricanes for example the current hypothesis suggests that climate change will cause fewer hurricanes but that these hurricanes will be much more intense then the ones in the past. What people don't seem to understand is when heat is added to the system more water is added to the atmosphere. This will cause more extremes in weather in almost all forms, more snow, more rain, more droughts, more floods, more sunshine. It's all an effect of more moisture being in the atmosphere.

[Jack Weber]

I'll be glad to open a whole new can of worms. You like worms, jack?

I know it sucks to be lonely , jack. But you have to ask yourself why you are in that situation. Then and only then will you discover true happiness.

Not a big fan of worms..

Although there was this kid who lived across the street from us when I was a kid...

A few days after it rained in the Summer time,the worms would be dried up on the road....He'd eat them for kicks!

Nowthen...

Are going to duck and dodge some more,or are you going to admit that your claims that Wyly and Waldo are the same person(based I suppose on your stellar deductive reasoning capabilities that both names start with a W??),are incorrect,and you'll retract that?

[lukin]

Not a big fan of worms..

Although there was this kid who lived across the street from us when I was a kid...

A few days after it rained in the Summer time,the worms would be dried up on the road....He'd eat them for kicks!

Nowthen...

Are going to duck and dodge some more,or are you going to admit that your claims that Wyly and Waldo are the same person(based I suppose on your stellar deductive reasoning capabilities that both names start with a W??),are incorrect,and you'll retract that?

Do you think you have a good sense of humor ,Jacky? Do your fellow losers on your datelines eat that up? Wldo can do what wldo needs to do. This forum is to him what a child is to a normal adult. I can't argue with pathetic...which is something you know a lot about. How's your fake wife doing?

[waldo]

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/moscow2010/

The same blocking event brought record rains to Pakistan.

Frankly, I am sick and tired of alarmist hypocrites whining when someone claims that a cold snap means there is no global warming when they run around screaming that every example of hot/exteme weather is evidence of climate change.

focusing entirely on Russia - a draft report... emphasizing an "evolving research assessment", that the report is not final... also soliciting comments. So, not even a published paper. Blocking: "an extreme pattern of atmospheric winds"... wonder where that came from - hey? Oh wait... what's this - you've edited your post to add a suggestion that "the block" is also responsible for the record rains in Pakistan. Your link doesn't support that claim...

Trenberth... NCAR - perhaps you've heard of him/it... sure you have... also emphasizing studies are needed:

Russian Heat, Asian Floods May Be Linked

We haven’t done the studies, but there’s very good reason to suspect that there’s a relationship,” said Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “It’s simply related to the idea that there is a monsoon with very large circulation. There’s an upwards branch of it. There has to be a downwards branch somewhere else.

The two things are connected on a very large scale, through what we call an overturning or monsoonal circulation,” he said. “There is a monsoon where upwards motion is being fed by the very moist air that’s going onshore, and there are exceptionally heavy rains. That drives rising air. That air has to come down somewhere. Some of it comes down over the north.”

Fueling the monsoons’ intensity are warmer-than-usual temperatures in and above the Indian Ocean. At 2 Fahrenheit degrees above late-20th century levels, the air can hold about 8 percent more water. At higher temperatures, the air is also more buoyant, and “invigorates the storms,” said Trenberth.

“Air rises faster than before. It sucks more air in. It changes moisture flow onto land even more. You can almost double the effect,” he said. “From that 8 percent more water, there can be 16 percent more rainfall.”

As for why some of that surging monsoon air may have fallen to Earth over Russia this year, Trenberth declined to speculate. Historical weather patterns do, however, suggest linkages across the Northern Hemisphere’s middle latitudes, intermittently coupled in turn to India’s summer monsoon cycles.

Russia’s heat wave could simply be part of that pattern, exacerbated this year by heat absorbed in Russia’s Arctic — where sunlight-reflecting sea ice is reaching all-time lows — and by heat-trapping soot particles from wildfires raging in western Russia. Trenberth added that large-scale rainfall events “tend to create more persistent weather patterns elsewhere,” creating heating patterns that lock atmospheric flows into place.

[Jack Weber]

Do you think you have a good sense of humor ,Jacky? Do your fellow losers on your datelines eat that up? Wldo can do what wldo needs to do. This forum is to him what a child is to a normal adult. I can't argue with pathetic...which is something you know a lot about. How's your fake wife doing?

Personal insults...

Great!

So to sum up...

Ducking and dodging!

[waldo]

Oh,this will be interesting....

Ya' see..Luky will now either:

1.Admit he's been talking out of his anal orifice

2.I suspect we'll see the usual "duck and dodge".

What's your guess?

yup... the lukin 'duck & dodge' it is

[TimG]

What people don't seem to understand is when heat is added to the system more water is added to the atmosphere. This will cause more extremes in weather in almost all forms, more snow, more rain, more droughts, more floods, more sunshine. It's all an effect of more moisture being in the atmosphere.

It is not "more extremes" it is a climate shift. e.g. if the average temp in a region increases by 1 degC then it follows that the number of 'hot' days compared to historical averages will increase but the number of 'cold' days will decrease. This means the number of 'extreme' events is likely EXACTLY the same. The only thing that changes is the composition of those extreme events. The same principal applies to rain/droughts.

Evidence for my claim can be found here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33887745/ns/us_news-environment/

Note that the total number of "record" days remains constant which effectively refutes your claim that the total number of extreme events increases.

The other aspect that gets ignored by alarmists is people will adapt as climate shifts so there will be few negative consequences from shift in the types of events.

Bottom line: the claim that climate change leads to more 'extreme weather' is dishonest propoganda.

[Jack Weber]

yup... the lukin 'duck & dodge' it is

It's the "Lukin Way"...

[waldo]

Bottom line: the claim that climate change leads to more 'extreme weather' is dishonest propoganda.

again, you were shown to be wrong when you claimed no evidence existed to link AGW to extreme events, (1) hurricane intensity and (2) droughts. You've just now presumed to put up something that substantiates your claim that no AGW link exists to this past summer Russian heat-wave... it doesn't support your claim, particularly in terms of your linked unsubstantiated inference to the Pakistan monsoon.

[TimG]

So, not even a published paper. Blocking: "an extreme pattern of atmospheric winds"... wonder where that came from - hey?

Read the bolded text in my quote. It is a natural weather phenomena and there is no evidence of a trend in blocking events.

Try this:

http://blogs.agu.org/geospace/2010/08/25/blocked-up-weather/

Also, the global climate models used for simulating continued global warming generally don’t have high enough of resolution to simulate blocking events realistically, Barriopedro says. In these models, there are fewer blocking events, and they’re shorter, than in real life. “There haven’t been too many studies on blocking and climate change because of this problem,” he adds.

OMG - the best models predict that these blocking events are REDUCED by global warming! We can't have that. It MUST be wrong!.

I have no doubt that the climate science industry will leave no stone unturned when it comes to finding a way to link these events to climate change but that does not change the fact that today there is no credible scientific connection between the two yet we have alarmists running around claiming that a link is established.

Nothing but shameless propoganda.

Edited December 10, 2010 by TimG

[lukin]

yup... the lukin 'duck & dodge' it is

I love it when the pathetic and lonely gang up on me and feed off each other's insecurities.

Waldo, did you TELL on me yet?

Jacky boy, don't confuse insults with reality. You've been easy to figure out.

Finally, I'm disappointed in myself for making too many posts today. The last thing I want to do is live beside my computer like jacky and waldo. Do you guys have kids, or at least a goldfish?

The shortest straw..... has been pulled.........for you.

[Jack Weber]

I love it when the pathetic and lonely gang up on me and feed off each other's insecurities.

Waldo, did you TELL on me yet?

Jacky boy, don't confuse insults with reality. You've been easy to figure out.

Finally, I'm disappointed in myself for making too many posts today. The last thing I want to do is live beside my computer like jacky and waldo. Do you guys have kids, or at least a goldfish?

The shortest straw..... has been pulled.........for you.

Ducking...Dodging...

Poor...Simple...Luky...

[waldo]

It's the "Lukin Way"...

make sure you're covered for infringement! Lukin Way™

[TimG]

(1) hurricane intensity and (2) droughts.

What I said about hurricaines is there no evidence in increase damages caused by hurricaines. What I said about droughts is there is no evidence of an increase in the number/extent or duration of droughts. I linked to studies that supported both of these claims.

Unlike you, I actually care more about what the data says instead of what the models claim.

Edited December 10, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

Read the bolded text in my quote. It is a nature weather phenomena and there is no evidence of a trend in blocking events.

so... based on a draft assessment, one soliciting for comments... an unpublished work/paper, you're doubling down on "blockage"? Of course you are?

[TimG]

so... based on a draft assessment, one soliciting for comments... an unpublished work/paper, you're doubling down on "blockage"?

You are desperate. Let's make it simple.

1) I made the claim that there is no evidence of a link between the russian heatwave/flooding and climate change.

2) I provided links from credible sources that show these are events were caused by a well known blocking phenomena.

3) I provided a reference that claims blocking events should decrease in a warming world according to the models. This implies that the blocking event was not 'predicted' by the climate models.

I think 2) & 3) unambiguously show that 1) is true.

The only counter argument you have is some FUTURE study might find a link but even if it did it would not invalidate my claim 1) which is based on the information that is available now.

The bottom line: alarmists are lying when they say there is a link between AGW and those events.

Edited December 10, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

What I said about hurricaines is there no evidence in increase damages caused by hurricaines. What I said about droughts is there is no evidence of an increase in the number/extent or duration of droughts.

Unlike you, I actually care more about what the data says instead of what the models claim.

re: your supposed (now) claim concerning hurricane intensity... a slimeball Pielke dodge to shift to economics... we could have some real fun there - hey?

re: your claim concerning droughts... I believe we took care of that - hey? I believe you said something about zero evidence!

Yes like the "net benefit" Russia is getting in decreased wheat crop yields.

If they are in fact decreasing the suggestion that this can be linked to a 0.5 degC increase in average temps is absurd. The tendency to claim a link between pretty much anything bad and GW even when there is no rational reason to do is one of the reasons why AGW alarmism is just another religion.

It actually caused by the more extreme heat waves, which is caused by the increased water in the atmosphere screwing up the hydrological cycle, which is caused by a 0.5 increase in average global temp. It also causing droughts in Russia. In Russia the average temperature change is much higher than the global average. At about 1.19, (link) but hey rather than listening to climate scientists and agricultural scientists about the effect climate change is having on crop yields I should listen to you.

The "noise" in the system far exceeds .5 degC. Attributing any effects to this rise is an exercise in voodoo.

Droughts go in cycles - i.e. over a course of century different areas of the globe will go through cycles of drought. There is zero evidence of any change to the duration, size or severity of droughts over the last 100 years. http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/02/24/update-on-global-drought-patterns-ipcc-take-note/

Try this:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JCLI2722.1

standard TimG parroting response from his linked denier blog site… nothing more than a complete distortion of that Sheffield paper – a paper focused on variability… not trends. You simply need to look at past work/papers involving the same scientist – Sheffield, to easily ascertain the absolute distortion/fabrication from TimG and his linked denier blog:

- a most recent paper from Sheffield et al:

Global Drought and Agricultural Water Productivity Monitoring: Transitioning Towards Application Scales

Drought is likely to increase in a global warming climate (Burke et al., 2006; Sheffield and Wood 2008)

- another paper from Sheffield et al:

Projected changes in drought occurrence under future global warming from multi-model, multi-scenario, IPCC AR4 simulations

Recent and potential future increases in global temperatures are likely to be associated with impacts on the hydrologic cycle, including changes to precipitation and increases in extreme events such as droughts.

- another paper from Sheffield et al:

Global Trends and Variability in Soil Moisture and Drought Characteristics, 1950–2000, from Observation-Driven Simulations of the Terrestrial Hydrologic Cycle

Within the long-term trends there are considerable interannual and decadal variations in soil moisture and drought characteristics for most regions, which impact the robustness of the trends. Analysis of detrended and smoothed soil moisture time series reveals that the leading modes of variability are associated with sea surface temperatures, primarily in the equatorial Pacific and secondarily in the North Atlantic. Despite the overall wetting trend there is a switch since the 1970s to a drying trend, globally and in many regions, especially in high northern latitudes. This is shown to be caused, in part, by concurrent increasing temperatures. Although drought is driven primarily by variability in precipitation, projected continuation of temperature increases during the twenty-first century indicate the potential for enhanced drought occurrence.

of course, there’s no shortage of work/papers from multitudes of other scientists; examples:

-

A Global Dataset of Palmer Drought Severity Index for 1870–2002: Relationship with Soil Moisture and Effects of Surface Warming

– NCAR (Aiguo Dai, Kevin E. Trenberth, AND Taotao Qian)

These results provide observational evidence for the increasing risk of droughts as anthropogenic global warming progresses and produces both increased temperatures and increased drying.

-

Detection of human influence on twentieth-century precipitation trends

(Zhang et al)

Here we compare observed changes in land precipitation during the twentieth century averaged over latitudinal bands with changes simulated by fourteen climate models. We show that anthropogenic forcing has had a detectable influence on observed changes in average precipitation within latitudinal bands, and that these changes cannot be explained by internal climate variability or natural forcing. We estimate that anthropogenic forcing contributed significantly to observed increases in precipitation in the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, drying in the Northern Hemisphere subtropics and tropics, and moistening in the Southern Hemisphere subtropics and deep tropics. The observed changes, which are larger than estimated from model simulations, may have already had significant effects on ecosystems, agriculture and human health in regions that are sensitive to changes in precipitation, such as the Sahel

=> i.e. decreases in mean precipitation over land in some latitude bands… attributed to AGW climate change

etc., etc., etc…… quite literally, I could easily throw up linked reference to a dozen+ papers… and it wouldn’t matter to the TimGs of the world. The AGW caused intensification of the global hydrological cycle is clearly showing increases in precipitation extremes… both increases in very heavy precipitation in wet areas and increases in drought in dry areas. But don't let that stop the TimGs beaking-off about "zero evidence".

The "noise" in the system far exceeds .5 degC. Attributing any effects to this rise is an exercise in voodoo.

Droughts go in cycles - i.e. over a course of century different areas of the globe will go through cycles of drought. There is zero evidence of any change to the duration, size or severity of droughts over the last 100 years.

[Guest TrueMetis]

It is not "more extremes" it is a climate shift. e.g. if the average temp in a region increases by 1 degC then it follows that the number of 'hot' days compared to historical averages will increase but the number of 'cold' days will decrease. This means the number of 'extreme' events is likely EXACTLY the same. The only thing that changes is the composition of those extreme events. The same principal applies to rain/droughts.

Your a moron you know that? First off in the future try linking to a study not a news report. News reports suck for this kind of thing. Second realize I was not talking temperature, I was talking events like rain, droughts, and hurricanes. Now I'm going to do something you don't know how to do apparently, link to actual studies.

"Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment"

Webster et al, Science 2005

"Large contribution of sea surface warming to recent increase in Atlantic hurricane activity"

-- Saunders and Lea, Nature 2008

"The Recent Increase in Atlantic Hurricane Activity: Causes and Implications."

Goldenberg et al, Science 2001

"Increased tropical Atlantic wind shear

in model projections of global warming" -- G. Vecchi, B. Soden, Geophysical Research Letters, 2007

"Tropical Cyclones and Global Climate Change: A Post-IPCC Assessment"

-- Henderson-Sellers et al, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 1998 (just Google the name the PDF that comes up must be donwloaded)

I can give you more if you wish, these are all about hurricanes. Though I'll sum it up for you, hurricanes exist on a 60-80 year cycle which controls their frequency, a increase in sea surface temp may increase there frequency but the cycle would still be a larger factor. Of course increased temperature would also increase wind shear decreasing the amount of hurricanes formed because it would take more energy to create a hurricane then. All of this means that there will be less hurricanes overall, depending on the cycle, but those hurricanes will be more powerful to overcome the wind shear. Here's the proof if you're still skeptical. (This one has to be paid for but the abstract and title should be enough)

"Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years"

-- K. Emanuel, Nature 2005

What I said about hurricaines is there no evidence in increase damages caused by hurricaines.

Well clearly this isn't true, see above.

Unlike you, I actually care more about what the data says instead of what the models claim.

And neither is this.

Tim nothing you've ever done here has shown that you care one bit about the data. Time to stop acting like you are the intellectually honest one here. Waldo may be a jerk sometimes but at least he's right.

[waldo]

You are desperate. Let's make it simple.

1) I made the claim that there is no evidence of a link between the russian heatwave/flooding and climate change.

2) I provided links from credible sources that show these are events were caused by a well known blocking phenomena.

3) I provided a reference that claims blocking events should decrease in a warming world according to the models. This implies that the blocking event was not 'predicted' by the climate models.

I think 2) & 3) unambiguously show that 1) is true.

The only counter argument you have is some FUTURE study might find a link but even if it did it would not invalidate my claim 1) which is based on the information that is available now.

The bottom line: alarmists are lying when they say there is a link between AGW and those events.

no - I believe it is your desperation shining through. Neither of your sources are definitive scientific analysis... they are preliminary assessments. Your first linked reference doesn't even mention the Pakistan monsoon/flooding... your second linked reference suggests, "And the heaviest monsoon downpours in Pakistan’s history, causing floods that have displaced more than 10 million people, may be due in part to this same blocking event.

on the other hand, I provided an alternative, prefaced with the scientists acknowledgment that scientific research/analysis of this past summer's record extreme events is required... you simply can't/won't accept Trenberth's plausible alternative.

[waldo]

Waldo may be a jerk sometimes but at least he's right.

please... I'm in reform mode!

[Saipan]

Russian Heat, Asian Floods May Be Linked

Actually that's Russian, Chinese and European cold and snowfall

and Australian floods.