Alberta floods

[waldo]

Bottomline is that there were 30 years from 1871-1900 that were consectutivley worse than current times.

Keep deflecting...you are getting so far from the truth.

you keep saying a lot of things - saying. Now what, you want to pull out a 30 year long past dated historical period (within the period you claimed bias within)! You apparently like this period now!!!

I've given you a graphic with an emphasis on satellite monitoring. It speaks for itself. You can choose to continue ignoring it - I could care less!

[waldo]

COULD....would you like me to define that for you? Your theory involves a COULD. Bottom line!!

not "my theory"... not even a theory... it's a statement put forward by the scientist you liked - but only when you could cherry-pick his statement and take it out of context from his study! Again, your reading comprehension difficulty is extreme! Take a second to compose yourself and read the following statement again. You can certainly define COULD for me... just do it in the context of the actual statement and apply to the appropriate part of the statement. One part includes NO COULD; rather, it includes a WE FOUND.

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]

you can continue to bark loudly and claim landfall hurricanes are the reference benchmark!!!

do you have a percentage for hurricanes that reach landfall... one that you believe/interpret represents an appropriate reference to extrapolate upon?

do you have any scientific based work/research/study that speaks to why fewer landfall hurricanes are occurring... one that categorically eliminates any considerations of warming/climate change? You do know that warmer water is the fuel right?

*** bump ***

[Accountability Now]

you keep saying a lot of things - saying. Now what, you want to pull out a 30 year long past dated historical period (within the period you claimed bias within)! You apparently like this period now!!!

I've given you a graphic with an emphasis on satellite monitoring. It speaks for itself. You can choose to continue ignoring it - I could care less!

You just can't keep in on the tracks....can you. The data I'm using is from 1851-2010....160 years. You chose to isolate your self serving point to show the most recent 60 years. I only needed to pick out 30 years prior to this to show that your so called escillation in activity is just fine.

Should we just look at 2005 alone....is that what you really want? Will that help you prove it? Yikes....

[Accountability Now]

not "my theory"... not even a theory... it's a statement put forward by the scientist you liked - but only when you could cherry-pick his statement and take it out of context from his study! Again, your reading comprehension difficulty is extreme! Take a second to compose yourself and read the following statement again. You can certainly define COULD for me... just do it in the context of the actual statement and apply to the appropriate part of the statement. One part includes NO COULD; rather, it includes a WE FOUND.

Yup....there you have it.....you missed the part after FOUND. I'll finish it for you....we found a GENTLE decrese. Wow...if that isn't convincing then I don't know what is. Then throw the could on there....that seals it!

You apparently need a holiday. I would suggest going to Florida and swimming in the warm Altantic waters. According to you, there will be less hurrincanes so you'll be happy. Of course the facts will tell you that you're wrong.

[Accountability Now]

*** bump ***

Did you bump your head? Perhaps that knocked some sense into you?

[waldo]

You just can't keep in on the tracks....can you.

I responded directly to your 30 year reference. I'm on your track mentioned - your 30-year track specifically mentioned.

If you'd like to challenge the original WMO statement (attributed to NOAA), please do... it's what set you off! Clearly, you need to address it! Otherwise, we can attribute your derail/deflect routine appropriately. Equally, if you'd like to challenge this latest graphic (with data also attributed to NOAA), please do.

[waldo]

Yup....there you have it.....you missed the part after FOUND. I'll finish it for you....we found a GENTLE decrese. Wow...if that isn't convincing then I don't know what is. Then throw the could on there....that seals it!

You apparently need a holiday. I would suggest going to Florida and swimming in the warm Altantic waters. According to you, there will be less hurrincanes so you'll be happy. Of course the facts will tell you that you're wrong.

progress!!! At least we finally have you reading the actual statement... the same one you've been floundering over the last dozen or so posts!!!

and now... you want to reach for the description of the FOUND decreasing trend? A "gentle" decreasing trend... one so gentle so as not to throw you into another wild frenzy of reading comprehension difficulty! A decreasing trend... even a "gentle" one... certainly trumps your personal opinion/statements... certainly trumps, an apparent, non-exist increasing trend... even a "gentle" one!!! What number of your FAILs do we assign this one for you, hey?

Edited July 9, 2013 by waldo

[Accountability Now]

I responded directly to your 30 year reference. I'm on your track mentioned - your 30-year track specifically mentioned.

If you'd like to challenge the original WMO statement (attributed to NOAA), please do... it's what set you off! Clearly, you need to address it! Otherwise, we can attribute your derail/deflect routine appropriately. Equally, if you'd like to challenge this latest graphic (with data also attributed to NOAA), please do.

Nope...nice deflection. I clearly showed you that I referenced further back and used the 30 years to put the nail in the coffin. Just because you don't realize that your coffin is now closed is not my fault.

Yup....challenged and defeated those statements. Anything else on your self serving agenda?

[waldo]

Did you bump your head? Perhaps that knocked some sense into you?

ah, you've been holding back!!! We almost say your uncontrolled self a few posts back when your standard "in your basement" pejorative came forward. Surely, surely... you have much more to give - yes? Don't let me play back those summary posts I've put together of your meltdowns!!! Don't let me down now!

[Accountability Now]

progress!!! At least we finally have you reading the actual statement... the same one you've been floundering over the last dozen or so posts!!!

and now... you want to reach for the description of the FOUND decreasing trend? A "gentle" decreasing trend... one so gentle so as not to throw you into another wild frenzy of reading comprehension difficulty! A decreasing trend... even a "gentle" one... certainly trumps your personal opinion/statements... certainly trumps, an apparent, non-exist increasing trend... even a "gentle" one!!! What number of your FAILs do we assign this one for you, hey?

LMFAO....you are so desperate. Soooooooooooooo despearate.

What are we at now....I showed your the error of your ways in green economy versus green energy. I also showed you up in the Calgary flood.....but that was easy. And now hurricanes. Yikes....3 and 0!

[waldo]

Nope...nice deflection. I clearly showed you that I referenced further back and used the 30 years to put the nail in the coffin. Just because you don't realize that your coffin is now closed is not my fault.

Yup....challenged and defeated those statements. Anything else on your self serving agenda?

well, we've certainly come full circle! You're back to your totally unsubstantiated self offering nothing but your personal opinion. You refuse to take up the challenges put to you. There's really no point in continuing - you clearly have nothing to offer, nothing of substance to contribute!

[Accountability Now]

ah, you've been holding back!!! We almost say your uncontrolled self a few posts back when your standard "in your basement" pejorative came forward. Surely, surely... you have much more to give - yes? Don't let me play back those summary posts I've put together of your meltdowns!!! Don't let me down now!

Please do. I would also encourage you to play back the quote where you said I was a waste of time and continued your onslaught now into numerous more pages.

Or...you could also repeat the doozy where you started pouting and gave MLW the ol' 'Catch you on the flip side". That was a good one too.

[Accountability Now]

well, we've certainly come full circle! You're back to your totally unsubstantiated self offering nothing but your personal opinion. You refuse to take up the challenges put to you. There's really no point in continuing - you clearly have nothing to offer, nothing of substance to contribute!

Its all there waldo....go back, take some time. Soak it all in and try to educate yourself.

[waldo]

LMFAO....you are so desperate. Soooooooooooooo despearate.

What are we at now....I showed your the error of your ways in green economy versus green energy. I also showed you up in the Calgary flood.....but that was easy. And now hurricanes. Yikes....3 and 0!

simply quoting you the study statement. The one you tripped over the last dozen or so posts with your COULD nonsense! Only in your personal assessment have you ever showed anyone an error in their ways. Ya, ya... so says the self-declared "FENCE SITTER"! At least have the intellectual honesty to announce your denial - loudly and proudly!!!

[Accountability Now]

simply quoting you the study statement. The one you tripped over the last dozen or so posts with your COULD nonsense! Only in your personal assessment have you ever showed anyone an error in their ways. Ya, ya... so says the self-declared "FENCE SITTER"! At least have the intellectual honesty to announce your denial - loudly and proudly!!!

3 and 0 baby....woot woot.

[waldo]

Please do. I would also encourage you to play back the quote where you said I was a waste of time and continued your onslaught now into numerous more pages.

Or...you could also repeat the doozy where you started pouting and gave MLW the ol' 'Catch you on the flip side". That was a good one too.

you've said a lot of things about the quote... you ignored my last challenge concerning that quote. That's what blowhards do!

[waldo]

3 and 0 baby....woot woot.

in your dreams! Take up the challenges... is there a problem?

[Accountability Now]

in your dreams! Take up the challenges... is there a problem?

What challenges? I've already answered everything that you asked.

Unlike you....I'm still waiting on answers on this thread to the questions:

The highest temperature ever was at the same spot in 1913. What caused that to happen?

Redding has hit 116F five times in the last 25 years. (http://sacramento-ca.knoji.com/10-alltime-hottest-weather-temperature-days-in-redding-california/)

Were all those jet stream related?

What caused the 1920 night to be so hot? Jet stream again?

The previous record was 60F which happened four times including July 5, 1940 and July 6, 1924. What caused these temperatures to be so low?

Do you think its possible that this same perfect storm for jet stream activity has happened in the past?

[waldo]

ah, the jet stream again! Haven't you taken enough lumps already? You've been shown the studies that speak to shifting jet stream patterns... you've been shown the attribution tied to accelerated Arctic sea ice melting. You've been shown the coincidental ties between some of the increasing extreme events and shifting jet stream patterns. You bring up the past but won't provide any attribution for... whatever claims you're trying to make??? Since you're the one that wants to speak to the past, the onus is on you to provide an accompanying attribution for the years/the periods/the events you want to speak to. Somehow, you think the onus is on me... to help you with your claims... you want me to provide the substantiation, the attribution you, apparently, can't provide, or refuse to provide.

that's not how this works. If you have data/date/periods/events that you want to use and make claims over, you are the one that must provide support for your claims - not me!

[Accountability Now]

ah, the jet stream again! Haven't you taken enough lumps already? You've been shown the studies that speak to shifting jet stream patterns... you've been shown the attribution tied to accelerated Arctic sea ice melting. You've been shown the coincidental ties between some of the increasing extreme events and shifting jet stream patterns. You bring up the past but won't provide any attribution for... whatever claims you're trying to make??? Since you're the one that wants to speak to the past, the onus is on you to provide an accompanying attribution for the years/the periods/the events you want to speak to. Somehow, you think the onus is on me... to help you with your claims... you want me to provide the substantiation, the attribution you, apparently, can't provide, or refuse to provide.

that's not how this works. If you have data/date/periods/events that you want to use and make claims over, you are the one that must provide support for your claims - not me!

You provided the claim and I asked you questions. You just have zero ability to answer them straight up. Go on and deflect again....

[waldo]

You provided the claim and I asked you questions. You just have zero ability to answer them straight up. Go on and deflect again....

no deflection on my part... certainly one on yours. You won't take the onus and substantiate your wanting to say... something... about past data/dates/periods/events. The onus is on you to support your claims and want to use past data/dates/periods/events. The onus is one you to provide attribution - the onus, most certainly, is not on me to pick up on your apparent inability to actually go beyond your blustering phase!

[waldo]

the Australian government's (relatively) recent report from its Climate Commission - The Critical Decade: Extreme weather

1. Climate change is already increasing the intensity and frequency of many extreme weather events, adversely affecting Australians. Extreme events occur naturally and weather records are broken from time to time. However, climate change is influencing these events and record-breaking weather is becoming more common around the world.

Some Australian examples include:

• Heat: Extreme heat is increasing across Australia. There will still be record cold events, but hot records are now happening three times more often than cold records.
• Bushfire weather: Extreme fire weather has increased in many parts of Australia, including southern NSW, Victoria, Tasmania and parts of South Australia, over the last 30 years.
• Rainfall: Heavy rainfall has increased globally. Over the last three years Australia’s east coast has experienced several very heavy rainfall events, fuelled by record-high surface water temperatures in the adjacent seas.
• Drought: A long-term drying trend is affecting the southwest corner of Western Australia, which has experienced a 15% drop in rainfall since the mid-1970s.
• Sea-level rise: Sea level has already risen 20 cm. This means that storm surges ride on sea levels that are higher than they were a century ago, increasing the risk of flooding along Australia’s socially, economically and environmentally important coastlines.

2. Climate change is making many extreme events worse in terms of their impacts on people, property, communities and the environment. This highlights the need to take rapid, effective action on climate change.

• It is crucial that communities, emergency services, health and medical services and other authorities prepare for the increases that are already occurring in the severity and frequency of many types of extreme weather.
• The southeast of Australia, including many of our largest population centres, stands out as being at increased risk from many extreme weather events – heatwaves, bushfires, heavy rainfall and sea-level rise.
• Key food-growing regions across the southeast and the southwest are likely to experience more drought in the future.
• Some of Australia’s iconic ecosystems are threatened by climate change. Over the past three decades the Great Barrier Reef has suffered repeated bleaching events from underwater heatwaves. The freshwater wetlands of Kakadu National Park are at risk from saltwater intrusion due to rising sea level.

3. The climate system has shifted, and is continuing to shift, changing the conditions for all weather, including extreme weather events.

• Levels of greenhouse gases from the combustion of fossil fuels have increased by around 40% since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, causing the Earth’s surface to warm significantly.
• All weather events are now occurring in global climate system that is warmer and moister than it was 50 years ago. This has loaded the dice towards more frequent and more severe extreme weather events.

4. There is a high risk that extreme weather events like heatwaves, heavy rainfall, bushfires and cyclones will become even more intense in Australia over the coming decades.

• There is little doubt that over the next few decades changes in these extreme events will increase the risks of adverse consequences to human health, agriculture, infrastructure and the environment.
• Stabilising the climate is like turning around a battleship – it cannot be done immediately given its momentum. When danger is ahead you must start turning the wheel now. Any delay means that it is more and more difficult to avert the future danger.
• The climate system has strong momentum for further warming over the next few decades because of the greenhouse gases that have already been emitted, and those that will be emitted in future. This means that it is highly likely that extreme weather events will become even more severe in Australia over that period.

5. Only strong preventive action now and in the coming years can stabilise the climate and halt the trend of increasing extreme weather for our children and grandchildren.

• Averting danger requires strong preventative action. How quickly and deeply we reduce greenhouse gas emissions will greatly influence the severity of extreme events in the future.
• The world is already moving to tackle climate change. Ninety countries, representing 90% of global emissions, are committed to reducing their emissions and have programs in place to achieve this. As the 15th largest emitter in the world, Australia has an important role to play.
• Much more substantial action will be required if we are to stabilise the climate by the second half of the century. Globally emissions must be cut rapidly and deeply to nearly zero by 2050, with Australia playing its part.
• The decisions we make this decade will largely determine the severity of climate change and its influence on extreme events that our grandchildren will experience. This is the critical decade to get on with the job.

Edited July 9, 2013 by waldo

[Accountability Now]

no deflection on my part... certainly one on yours. You won't take the onus and substantiate your wanting to say... something... about past data/dates/periods/events. The onus is on you to support your claims and want to use past data/dates/periods/events. The onus is one you to provide attribution - the onus, most certainly, is not on me to pick up on your apparent inability to actually go beyond your blustering phase!

So seriously....why did all these events happen in the past but yet activist keep using similar events from today as if its the end of the world?

I need to know these things waldo. Why? Why? Why?

[Accountability Now]

the Australian government's (relatively) recent report from its Climate Commission - The Critical Decade: Extreme weather

Again....you post a bunch of info and offer zero insight of your own. Is that your thing?