Alberta floods

[Accountability Now]

you're asking me to substantiate your claim??? That's not how it works around here! That onus is on you!

You made the claim and I asked a question of your claim. Still waiting for your answer....if you can!

[waldo]

I have yet to make a claim about what caused those past floods or extreme temperatures.

clearly! You purposely refuse to take that challenge put directly to you. Instead you claim the current jet stream shifts are nothing unusual..... you claim it in the context of repeatedly suggesting there's been extreme events in the past. Of course, no one disputes the obvious - well, except you! If you're going to claim the jet stream shifts of today (as attributed to Arctic amplication/accelerated Arctic sea ice melt) are not unusual, and at the same time tout past events, the onus is on you to provide a correlation of past events to the same shifting jet stream patterns (of today) that you choose to ignore/deny.

[Accountability Now]

clearly! You purposely refuse to take that challenge put directly to you. Instead you claim the current jet stream shifts are nothing unusual..... you claim it in the context of repeatedly suggesting there's been extreme events in the past. Of course, no one disputes the obvious - well, except you! If you're going to claim the jet stream shifts of today (as attributed to Arctic amplication/accelerated Arctic sea ice melt) are not unusual, and at the same time tout past events, the onus is on you to provide a correlation of past events to the same shifting jet stream patterns (of today) that you choose to ignore/deny.

So no answer still?

[waldo]

I guess you don't like numbers. Too bad...true science uses them effectively

the numbers you have extreme (event) difficulty with are those that suggest an increase in extreme events, that show a positive increased trend in extreme events

[waldo]

You made the claim and I asked a question of your claim. Still waiting for your answer....if you can!

you made the claim that the relatively recent jet stream shifting patterns are not unusual and have no bearing on or association to some of the recent extreme events. In the same way that you refuse to provide a causal link attribution to the extreme events of the past that you continue to highlight, you also refuse to provide a causal link attribution to the increased extreme events of the relatively recent period. You refuse on both accounts/levels: you refuse to provide attribution for either the past or the relatively recent extreme events. Just what are you bringing to this discussion?

[Accountability Now]

you made the claim that the relatively recent jet stream shifting patterns are not unusual and have no bearing on or association to some of the recent extreme events. In the same way that you refuse to provide a causal link attribution to the extreme events of the past that you continue to highlight, you also refuse to provide a causal link attribution to the increased extreme events of the relatively recent period. You refuse on both accounts/levels: you refuse to provide attribution for either the past or the relatively recent extreme events. Just what are you bringing to this discussion?

Discussion? I asked you a question which you refuse to answer. Hardly a discussion...

Still waiting for an answer. Or would you prefer to continue deflecting?

[waldo]

Discussion? I asked you a question which you refuse to answer. Hardly a discussion...

Still waiting for an answer. Or would you prefer to continue deflecting?

there's no deflection here. Again, if you can't support your claims, I'm certainly not coming to your assistance. Again, the onus is on you to support your claims.

[Accountability Now]

there's no deflection here. Again, if you can't support your claims, I'm certainly not coming to your assistance. Again, the onus is on you to support your claims.

No claim..just questions. Deflect away!

[waldo]

No claim..just questions. Deflect away!

no deflection here! You won't provide any causal attribution to anything, either past or relatively recent extreme events. You simply refuse to accept the possibility that climate change has contributed to the increased occurrence of extreme events... you ignore the shifting jet stream patterns noted in relation to relatively recent extreme events, you ignore the studies that attribute the shifting jet stream patterns to climate change, you ignore it all! Talk about (your) deflecting!

[Accountability Now]

no deflection here! You won't provide any causal attribution to anything, either past or relatively recent extreme events. You simply refuse to accept the possibility that climate change has contributed to the increased occurrence of extreme events... you ignore the shifting jet stream patterns noted in relation to relatively recent extreme events, you ignore the studies that attribute the shifting jet stream patterns to climate change, you ignore it all! Talk about (your) deflecting!

You posted your claim...I asked questions.... and you continue to deflect. I'm still waiting on your answers

[waldo]

You posted your claim...I asked questions.... and you continue to deflect. I'm still waiting on your answers

you're a waste of time - you contribute nothing to this thread. I have no further intention to engage you in your repeated nothingness!

[Accountability Now]

you're a waste of time - you contribute nothing to this thread. I have no further intention to engage you in your repeated nothingness!

No need for the personal attack. I'm still waiting for you answer the questions I posed which started this so called discussion

[waldo]

from a July 3, 2013 World Meteorological Organization (WMO) press release detailing a new WMO report: The Global Climate 2001-2010, A Decade of Climate Extremes

The world experienced unprecedented high-impact climate extremes during the 2001-2010 decade, which was the warmest since the start of modern measurements in 1850 and continued an extended period of pronounced global warming. More national temperature records were reported broken than in any previous decade.

The report, The Global Climate 2001-2010, A Decade of Climate Extremes, analysed global and regional temperatures and precipitation, as well as extreme events such as the heat waves in Europe and Russia, Hurricane Katrina in the United States of America, Tropical Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar, droughts in the Amazon Basin, Australia and East Africa and floods in Pakistan.

The decade was the warmest for both hemispheres and for both land and ocean surface temperatures. The record warmth was accompanied by a rapid decline in Arctic sea ice, and accelerating loss of net mass from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and from the world’s glaciers. As a result of this widespread melting and the thermal expansion of sea water, global mean sea levels rose about 3 millimetres (mm) per year, about double the observed 20th century trend of 1.6 mm per year. Global sea level averaged over the decade was about 20 cm higher than that of 1880, according to the report.

The WMO report charted rising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Global-average concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose to 389 parts per million in 2010 (an increase of 39% since the start of the industrial era in 1750), methane to 1808.0 parts per billion (158%) and nitrous oxide to 323.2 parts per billion (20%).

Temperatures: The average land and ocean-surface temperature for the decade 2001-2010 was estimated to be 14.47°C, or 0.47°C above the 1961–1990 global average and +0.21°C above the 1991–2000 global average (with a factor of uncertainty of ± 0.1°C).

Precipitation and floods: The 2001-2010 decade was the second wettest since 1901. Globally, 2010 was the wettest year since the start of instrumental records.

Tropical cyclones: Between 2001 and 2010, there were 511 tropical cyclone related events which resulted in a total of nearly 170,000 persons reported killed, over 250 million people reported affected and estimated economic damages of US$ 380 billion. According to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2001-2010 was the most active decade since 1855 in terms of tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic Basin.

[Accountability Now]

from a July 3, 2013 World Meteorological Organization (WMO) press release detailing a new WMO report: The Global Climate 2001-2010, A Decade of Climate Extremes

The 2001-2010 decade was the second wettest since 1901.

According to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2001-2010 was the most active decade since 1855 in terms of tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic Basin.

So again...what happened in 1901 and 1855 that made them more wet and more active?

[waldo]

So again...what happened in 1901 and 1855 that made them more wet and more active?

I can't hold your hand any more than giving you the direct link to the report. Those years are the starting point references! Carry on...

[Accountability Now]

I can't hold your hand any more than giving you the direct link to the report. Those years are the starting point references! Carry on...

Actually the NOAA tracks back to 1851. Just sayin...but more imporantly....

The Atlantic hurricane database (or HURDAT) extends back to 1851. However, because tropical storms and hurricanes spend much of their lifetime over the open ocean - some never hitting land - many systems were "missed" during the late 19th and early 20th Centuries (Vecchi and Knutson 2008). Starting in 1944, systematic aircraft reconnaissance was commenced for monitoring both tropical cyclones and disturbances that had the potential to develop into tropical storms and hurricanes. This did provide much improved monitoring, but still about half of the Atlantic basin was not covered (Sheets 1990). Beginning in 1966, daily satellite imagery became available at the National Hurricane Center, and thus statistics from this time forward are most complete (McAdie et al. 2009).

For hurricanes striking the USA Atlantic and Gulf coasts, one can go back further in time with relatively reliable counts of systems because enough people have lived along coastlines since 1900.

Any chance this had anything to do with the increased tropical cyclones?

[waldo]

so..... you're now going to completely ignore that 1901 was only a starting point reference for precipitation? No problem, we can concentrate on your other single sentence isolation from the WMO report/quote.

first, let's make my personal position clear by drawing your attention to this earlier post within this very thread... the one that has me emphasizing uncertainty over hurricane/cyclone frequency increase... that's a global position/uncertainty (not just limited to the Atlantic Basin). My particular focus was/is on intensity and, yes, my citation/study reference did isolate on the Atlantic Basin - with an emphasis on the robust/detailed period of satellite coverage from 1975 on.

if you want to quibble with the WMO on 1855 versus 1851... go for it. I expect the statement, attributed to NOAA, may have chosen 1855 since the full decade is missing (1850). Of course, it's a moot point since 1866 is declared (by NOAA) as the most active hurricane year. And, of course, your initial claim/reply had you drawing attention to 1855 as the most active year. So... you were wrong on both of your suggestions relative to the years you highlighted, 1901 (most precipitation) & 1855 (most active hurricane). Again, you had both of these wrong.

you also failed with your link to a somewhat dated NOAA paper (it says updated 2003... not sure of its original date) speaking to an initiative to update the historical past for Atlantic Basin hurricanes. If you hadn't been so hot to jump on your dated paper you could have taken a bit more time and realized that NOAA has finished updating its historical accounting. Your concerns over an imbalance of more detailed satellite era data skewing the NOAA database should now be put to rest... the waldo is always happy to help you out in allaying your concerns (real or otherwise).

of course, this leaves you with the opportunity to actually challenge the WMO quote you isolated on; that being this WMO statement: "According to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2001-2010 was the most active decade since 1855 in terms of tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic Basin." Emphasis on the words: "active decade"... again, a decadal perspective! Now, again, I personally don't have any skin in this one... I already pointed out to you, my personal position leans to uncertainty over increased frequency. However, again, I do hold to the (apparent prevailing position) that intensity has increased (in line with the study I linked comparing the prevalence of Cat4/5 versus Cat 1/2 hurricanes). If you'd like to challenge the WMO statement (attributed to NOAA), that's your prerogative.

[Accountability Now]

so..... you're now going to completely ignore that 1901 was only a starting point reference for precipitation? No problem, we can concentrate on your other single sentence isolation from the WMO report/quote.

Actually...I didn't care about either of these so much but I was just drawing you back in after you claimed that I offered nothingness and you refused to discuss anything with me. Obviously you aren't even consistent in your own statements. Yikes.....apparently I do offer something.

But now that I have you drawn in....

first, let's make my personal position clear by drawing your attention to this earlier post within this very thread... the one that has me emphasizing uncertainty over hurricane/cyclone frequency increase... that's a global position/uncertainty (not just limited to the Atlantic Basin). My particular focus was/is on intensity and, yes, my citation/study reference did isolate on the Atlantic Basin - with an emphasis on the robust/detailed period of satellite coverage from 1975 on.

I based everything your posted quote....of course you didn't actually say anything about uncertainty there....in fact you didn't say anything at all. Just posted a link and quoted from it. But glad to see that you at least agree with me that the details differ based on the years.

And, of course, your initial claim/reply had you drawing attention to 1855 as the most active year. So... you were wrong on both of your suggestions relative to the years you highlighted, 1901 (most precipitation) & 1855 (most active hurricane). Again, you had both of these wrong.

Clearly you can't remember who said what. It was YOUR quote from YOUR study that claimed 1855....I just repeated it. Please at least get that straight. I certainly did not claim 1855 was the most active hurricane. I cut and pasted exactly what your quote said....go back and read. Kudos for you on the attempted deflection but I'm onto you now.

you also failed with your link to a somewhat dated NOAA paper (it says updated 2003... not sure of its original date) speaking to an initiative to update the historical past for Atlantic Basin hurricanes. If you hadn't been so hot to jump on your dated paper you could have taken a bit more time and realized that NOAA has finished updating its historical accounting. Your concerns over an imbalance of more detailed satellite era data skewing the NOAA database should now be put to rest... the waldo is always happy to help you out in allaying your concerns (real or otherwise).

I didn't link a paper...I quoted directly from the NOAA website (http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html). Would you like to try again? As for your claim that they have finished updating the historical account....please review the Re-Analysis Project webpage (http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/data_sub/re_anal.html). They just recently added 1941 -1945 as of June 2013. Not sure how many others have yet to be done but the numbers are still trickling in.

Regardless...the original point remains regardless of your deflection. As stated above....many storms in the Atlantic basin were missed because they never hit landfall. The re-analysis study is as NOAA says is "information on tropical cyclones is revised using an enhanced collection of historical meteorological data in the context of today's scientific understanding of hurricanes and analysis techniques." In other words...they can only upgrade or downgrade known storms they can't go and make them up from non-existent data. For the most part, they only kept data from landfall hurricanes.

So....lets look at landfall hurricanes in the US. NOAA has a nice little PDF (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/nws-nhc-6.pdf) which outlines the number of hurricanes to hit landfall (table 7). In this table you will notice that the number of hurricanes to hit the US for each decade dating back to 1851 yet the number is very consistent to the average of 17.8 over the entire period. 2001-2010 had 19 hurricanes with 7 of them being major hurricanes. 1941-1950 was the most frequent and most severe registering 24 hurricanes with 10 of them being major. 1871-1880 seems to match up quite well with 2001-2010 as it had 20 hurricanes with 7 of them being major. I wonder if that was global warming then too? Bottom line is that data WAS available to track these landfall hurricanes and they have not shown any major trends in numbers or severity. Convesely they have only been able to track all cyclones in recent years thus showing the increase that global warming activists jump on.

(PS...anyone who refers to themselves in the third person (ie the waldo) tells me everything I need to know )

Emphasis on the words: "active decade"... again, a decadal perspective! Now, again, I personally don't have any skin in this one... I already pointed out to you, my personal position leans to uncertainty over increased frequency. However, again, I do hold to the (apparent prevailing position) that intensity has increased (in line with the study I linked comparing the prevalence of Cat4/5 versus Cat 1/2 hurricanes). If you'd like to challenge the WMO statement (attributed to NOAA), that's your prerogative.

As per your statement on prevelance of Cat4/5 versus Cat 1/2.... you should look again at table 6 which breaks down the number of US landfall hurrinances by category. It again shows no significant increase to past decades. Of course this table is directly from the NOAA and not 'atributed to NOAA'....so you can challenge it too...if that's your perogative.

As for having skin in the game....I too don't really don't invest a lot of time in the hurricane chasing game. However, this does come back to my original point from the start of this talk on floods such that global warming activists will use what ever statistic they can (whether proper or not) to try and prove their point. These people do have skin in the game and I personally have lost faith in most things they say because they manipute the data to their advantage.

One of the first quoted lines from your first statements talks about Hurricane Katrina. Katrina ranks as the third deadliest hurricane and the costliest IF you don't account for inflation. However those rankings are based on human connections. How many people would have died if the levees hadn't broken? How much money would it have cost then? What if that exact same storm hit a less populated area? Would it be the big bad Katrina? Probably not. Yet when you look at the objective measurements, Katrina was third on pressure (behind) 1935 and 1969. Hmmm...did global warming cause those attrocities too? And somewhere else I read that Katrina ranked 6th for wind speed. But yet Katrina is lablled as this global warming nightmare?

The activists do know what they are doing though....they know they only have so long to strike before people tend to forget these things. As per the linked paper from NOAA above "Katrina provided a grim reminder of what can happen in a hurricane landfall. Sociologists estimate, however, that people only remember the worst effects of a hurricane for about seven years (B. Morrow, personal communication)" Make sure the sky is falling and people will listen.....well for 7 years anyway.

I know you don't really care but my point is that I have seen too many agendas and not enough pure science when it comes to the global warming scare tactics. I can't trust scientists who will manipulate data....unfortunately that same statement can be applied to those opposing global warming too. Hence the reason I am a fence sitter.

[waldo]

Actually...I didn't care about either of these so much but I was just drawing you back in after you claimed that I offered nothingness and you refused to discuss anything with me. Obviously you aren't even consistent in your own statements. Yikes.....apparently I do offer something.

But now that I have you drawn in....

I bow to your pomposity! You most certainly were offering nothing... and now you've simply amplified your own nothingness contributions!

[waldo]

But glad to see that you at least agree with me that the details differ based on the years.

more of your pomposity! Get over yourself! "Details differ based on the years"!!! That's deep man, deep! There's very little I agree with you on... if i could actually figure out what you're saying here, I might give it more than my standard cursory scan of anything you say!

Edited July 9, 2013 by waldo

[waldo]

Clearly you can't remember who said what. It was YOUR quote from YOUR study that claimed 1855....I just repeated it. Please at least get that straight. I certainly did not claim 1855 was the most active hurricane. I cut and pasted exactly what your quote said....go back and read. Kudos for you on the attempted deflection but I'm onto you now.

"you're onto to me now"!!! Oh my! Should I be wary of your... inconsequential contributions? Here's you actual statement/claim: you quote the actual years, as in single years... and you, yes you... draw the inference. You really have difficulty with comparisons... this example simply adds to your past stumbling on comparative review. I went out of my way to over-emphasize "decade & decadal perspective"... just for you. Clearly, it didn't register. The reference is decade/decadal being compared to respective decades with starting points 1901 & 1855. In your statement, as quoted again below, you've narrowed that to a singular years focus..... implying those single years as, respectively, more wet and more active. You blew it again!

So again...what happened in 1901 and 1855 that made them more wet and more active?

[waldo]

I didn't link a paper...I quoted directly from the NOAA website. Would you like to try again? As for your claim that they have finished updating the historical account....please review the Re-Analysis Project webpage. They just recently added 1941 -1945 as of June 2013. Not sure how many others have yet to be done but the numbers are still trickling in.

would I like to try again? Would you? You're quoting from an FAQ... did you ever think that FAQ might be drawn from something else? Again, I suggest you slow down and take the time to save you embarassment. It's quite telling that you would read the first entry and assume it reflects on "everything" historical that's been added. This really explains a lot of the problems you have - you're just not complete/thorough! Your stated, "numbers trickling in", is a hoot!

Over 5000 additions and alterations are now approved for the 1851 to 1910 era by the National Hurricane Center's Best Track Change Committee --- Example: Re-analysis results:

• Documentation for 1851 to 1910
• Documentation for 1911 to 1920
• Documentation for 1921 to 1930
• Documentation for 1944 to 1953

.

[waldo]

So....lets look at landfall hurricanes in the US.

As per your statement on prevelance of Cat4/5 versus Cat 1/2.... you should look again at table 6 which breaks down the number of US landfall hurrinances by category. It again shows no significant increase to past decades. Of course this table is directly from the NOAA and not 'atributed to NOAA'....so you can challenge it too...if that's your perogative.

like I said, I can only hold your hand so far... I even re-linked you my previous post - again, in your haste you don't take the time to save yourself further embarrassment! There is no legitimacy in using a landfall reference as anything indicative of overall frequency and/or intensity. The waldo will will re-quote a very short extract of the prior linked post, since you clearly have trouble with examining provided links!

an active Atlantic hurricane season does not necessarily translate into a U.S. landfall for respective hurricanes. There are an assortment of factors at play, including the most fundamental aspect that those forming to the east and north have a greater propensity to 'recurve' into the ocean. Of course, you went to NOAA for your misdirected initial reference... you should have stuck with it in regards your landfall talking point: Warmer Ocean Could Reduce Number of Atlantic Hurricane Landfalls

Using data extending back to the middle nineteenth century, we found a gentle decrease in the trend of U.S. landfalling hurricanes when the global ocean is warmed up. This trend coincides with an increase in vertical wind shear over the tropical North Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, which could result in fewer U.S. landfalling hurricanes.

.

[waldo]

However, this does come back to my original point from the start of this talk on floods such that global warming activists will use what ever statistic they can (whether proper or not) to try and prove their point. These people do have skin in the game and I personally have lost faith in most things they say because they manipute the data to their advantage.

you're making a most generalized and unsubstantiated statement... certainly nothing from that World Meteorological Organization report speaks to your claim of "manipulated data to their advantage". If you'd care to present something from a reputable organization manipulating data, please do... otherwise take your aggrandized, extreme liberty taking, unsubstantiated tripe elsewhere.

One of the first quoted lines from your first statements talks about Hurricane Katrina. Katrina ranks as the third deadliest hurricane and the costliest IF you don't account for inflation. However those rankings are based on human connections. How many people would have died if the levees hadn't broken? How much money would it have cost then? What if that exact same storm hit a less populated area? Would it be the big bad Katrina? Probably not. Yet when you look at the objective measurements, Katrina was third on pressure (behind) 1935 and 1969. Hmmm...did global warming cause those attrocities too? And somewhere else I read that Katrina ranked 6th for wind speed. But yet Katrina is lablled as this global warming nightmare?

no - this is you, again, taking extreme liberties and offering nothing but your unsubstantiated opinion. That WMO report makes 3 references to Hurricane Katrina; as follows:

The first decade of the 21st century was the warmest decade recorded since modern measurements began around 1850. It saw above-average precipitation, including one year – 2010 – that broke all previous records. It was also marked by dramatic climate and weather extremes such as the European heatwave of 2003, the 2010 floods in Pakistan, hurricane Katrina in the United States of America (USA), cyclone Nargis in Myanmar and long-term droughts in the Amazon Basin, Australia and East Africa.

The most active season ever recorded was 2005, with a total of 27 named storms, of which 15 reached hurricane intensity and seven were classified as major hurricanes (Category 3 or higher). Katrina, a Category-5 hurricane, was the most devastating hurricane of the decade, making landfall in the southern USA in August.

Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) Maximum winds - 280 km/h Deadliest hurricane to strike the USA since 1928.

again, above is the full and complete extent of the WMO's report references to Hurricane Katrina... none of which supports or lends credence to your rambling rant!

...

[waldo]

The activists do know what they are doing though....they know they only have so long to strike before people tend to forget these things. As per the linked paper from NOAA above "Katrina provided a grim reminder of what can happen in a hurricane landfall. Sociologists estimate, however, that people only remember the worst effects of a hurricane for about seven years (B. Morrow, personal communication)" Make sure the sky is falling and people will listen.....well for 7 years anyway.

activists??? Who are you referring to - specifically? Man you're desperate to manipulate that NOAA quote for your self-serving purpose! Of course, the 7-year sociologist remembering estimate was made in regards to a concern over hurricane preparedness; i.e., it appears people have a tendency to let their 'preparedness guard' down after a certain period of time. That's certainly a nice spin you've taken with that reference... why... some might say you've "manipulated it"!!!

.

I know you don't really care but my point is that I have seen too many agendas and not enough pure science when it comes to the global warming scare tactics. I can't trust scientists who will manipulate data....unfortunately that same statement can be applied to those opposing global warming too. Hence the reason I am a fence sitter.

I have no doubt that your insular, myopic and skewed viewpoint doesn't provide you an opportunity to examine any significant degree of science. And now... you jump full bore, full speed ahead into conspiracy - "scientists manipulating data"! You're no fence sitter... I expect you fell off the fence long ago... if you truly were ever 'on it'! Just say it... I'm sure you'll feel liberated!

.