Increasing weather/climate extremes

[Accountability Now]

no - again, you don't understand...

clearly, you don't understand... you can't read/comprehend...

Of the two of us....I am the only one to understand. Understand the fact that you keep blabbing on when your argument fell flat on its face once I exposed what the actual study said. Let me know if you actually read the study...

Oh...and let me know when you learn how to actually formulate an argument by linking and naming the proper study verus using an article or press release for your go to punch. I would say that you are better than that.....but I would just be lying if I said it.

[Accountability Now]

your "challenges", as feeble/limited as they are, have been well responded to. You can continue to play silly buggar over that World Meteorological Organization (WMO) single line sentence statement, the one referencing tropical cyclone activity over the 2001-2010 decadal period of review (a statement attributed to NOAA). The statement that you highlighted... that you ran with. As I said, I'm quite content to accept that WMO statement (attributed to NOAA). You continue to have a problem with that statement... as I continue to state, the onus is on you to challenge/counter that statement. Of course, when you couldn't even recognize the distinction between tropical cyclone and hurricane, your hyper-rant fails/failed, big time! Equally, you didn't even have the wherewithal to recognize the WMO more directly attributed the statement to a particular division within NOAA... it was quite revealing to recognize you had a most myopic/limited understanding of the expansive breadth of the NOAA organization... it's 30+ division/line centers/service centers/etc.

again, the onus is on you to counter that WMO statement (attribution to NOAA)... but first, you need to actually read the statement, realize exactly what 'tropical cyclone' means, place that statement in proper context, recognize the full organizational breadth of NOAA, zero in on the right particular NOAA division..... and then..... if you so choose, target/counter the exact/proper NOAA attribution mentioned. The onus is on you!

1. Show me who at the NOAA said that 2001-2010 was the most active hurricane decade since 1855.

2. Show me some of this global data for an increase in exteme weather events.

3. Show me anthropogenic ties to the jet stream shift or the artic amplification.

Come on partner...time to saddle up if you want to ride with the big boys.

[Accountability Now]

don't backpedal now! Anyone, like you, who trots out the idiotic "it hasn't warmed since 1997", is in full out denial. That statement is you denying global warming. I've never said the "science is settled"... quit fabricating. I've spoken directly to, many times over, the theory of AGW... quit fabricating.

now, in your latest backpedal/flip-flop response to challenge, you claim you recognize a warming trend exists... then what's with your idiotic 'since 1997' claim? Do you just spew your denier claims until you're actually challenged to substantiate them? Is that your game?

now, in your latest backpedal/flip-flop response to challenge, you claim you recognize a warming trend exists... but you doubt man's involvement! Nice to see you refine your expressed 'fringe of the fringe' denial when challenged. Now you just don't accept the anthropogenic tie/principal causal linkage. Care to showcase your further brilliance and provide an alternate principal causal tie/linkage, one other than anthropogenic sources? If you don't have one, if you don't have an alternate... are you just one of those guys who is in denial for denial's sake? Is that you? Denial for denial's sake?

No backpedal here...its just a case of you not being able to keep up! The world has warmed which is something I have NEVER disputed.

As per the NOAA chart (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201201-201212.png), it has warmed from 1910 all the way up to 1940s....had a 40 year hiatus there until 1980 and then warmed some more until recently. If you look around 1997-1998 it starts to plateau and it stayed there until 2010 or so. If you look after 2010 you start to see a slight cooling dip downward.

Now...unlike you I am not pompous enough to say that it will now continue downward because only time will tell. It may go down but it may very well go back up. But what is certain is that the models and forecasting that the warmies have said based on the CO2 input into the atmosphere will NOT account for this 15 year plateau. How shocking!!

Care to showcase your further brilliance and provide an alternate principal causal tie/linkage, one other than anthropogenic sources?

Thanks for your compliment. I always knew you were a fan of mine. Perhaps you are actually starting to overcome some of your inabilities to see the light? Of course you have to keep working at it but it will come.....eventually.

As for me explaiing why is something 'Natural'...sorry but science doesn't work that way. Science is able to explain why gravity works or why we have seasons because its already been explained and proven by numerous cycles of reoccurance to make it fact. As for the recent changes which are easily mirrored by past events, we are only begining to understand why these cycles happen. Why do we go through ice ages and then warming periods only to revert back to ice ages? We know that these things happened but not certain why. What do these cycles have to do with extreme weather events? The data to truly answer this in a scientific fashion....the same data that can actually make it a scientific fact....is still years away. But don't let me stop you from speculating and wondering just when the sky will fall.

[Accountability Now]

I see Old Waldo is getting schooled again - now with "Climate Extremes" ....you might have trouble getting a straight answer out of him...

Yup....this is the fourth time in recent memory that I have had to show him the way. To be honest....its getting a little boring as he doesn't really put up much of fight anymore.

[Accountability Now]

a graphic from one of the world's leading reinsurers, 'Munich Re', detailing worldwide 'natural catastrophes' that occurred over the period 1980-2011, highlighting the number of events, trended:

Wow...up since the 80s hey? Wouldn't want to include the same chart with data from the Dirty Thirties....would ya?

[waldo]

Did you know that in the US, not a single State temperature record has been broken since 1995? There were a few in the early 90's but most go back a long way. When some of these records start to fall, then we can talk about extremes.

not a single U.S. State temperature record broken since 1995? You need to update your talking points => South Carolina, 113°F - June 29, 2012. But, of course, this is a part of "the denier tactic" that I alluded to earlier. Somehow, in your choice to isolate on the contiguous U.S., you ignore that 2012 was the warmest year on record; that the decade as a whole (2000–2009) was the U.S.' warmest on record.

yours is certainly one way to selectively, in self-service, look at temperature "extremes"... by looking at a single temperature day record and declaring it the benchmark reference. Another more pertinent way to look at temperature within the contiguous U.S., is to look at annual average temperature records:

every one of the lower 48 states experienced an annual temperature average in 2012 that was higher than the 20th century average for that state. Nineteen U.S. states had their highest annual average temperatures on record; 26 others had years that ranked in the top-10 hottest ever.

[waldo]

2) A cycle of low hurricane activity? No sir - there may be a lot fewer but - they are way more powerful....yet there has not been a landfall hurricane of even a Category 3 since 2005!

you now come back with the same claim I just punted in my preceding post??? Again, this isn't a cycle of, as you describe, 'low hurricane activity. And, again, the only claim being made with respect to tropical cyclones/hurricanes, is that intensity is increasing... not frequency, not activity.

just what does reaching landfall have to do with the intensity of hurricanes? Hurricanes that hit landfall are a very small segment of all hurricanes... those hitting the U.S. mainland, even less so. Yes, Atlantic Basin hurricanes hitting U.S. landfall has decreased in a relatively recent time frame... the causal ties to this are an area of ongoing scientific pursuit. In a recent thread I put forward a couple of study examples that speak to a possible causal linkage; e.g.: this partial extract from a preceding post:

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]

Strangely though, oceans in the Southern Hemisphere have over 90% of the warming - the Northern Hemisphere, less than 10%. Yet our human-induced CO2 seems pretty well-mixed around the globe.

setting aside the obvious disparity in respective Hemisphere ocean size... citation request

[waldo]

2) Katrina - the go-to story for hurricanes - hit New Orleans as a Category 3 and caused severe damage only due to political indifference in maintaining the levee system. [waldo: no - it hit much more than... just New Orleans. Actually, within New Orleans proper, winds were classified as within Cat1... occasionally Cat2 levels. Somehow, those that like to discount the overall impact/severity of Katrina, focus entirely on the city of New Orleans... as if to negate impacts seen across Louisiana and other U.S. States. Equally, those intent on diminishing the impact/severity of Katrina, highlight the Cat3 landfall reference... while ignoring Katrina initially hit landfall in Southern Florida as a Cat1, before strengthening in a very short period of time to a Cat5 level over the Gulf of Mexico... indicative of just how warm the Gulf water was to support that rapid escalation in intensity in just a short period of time. When it did hit land (for the second time) it barely had diminished from a Cat4 level with suggestion that given it's wide radius, parts of southern Louisiana were impacted at the Cat4 level. In any case, as I mentioned previously, the number of landfall hurricanes has shown a decrease in recent years, with some scientific research/study attributing that decrease to increased water temperature and related wind sheer effects. Of course, if nothing else, Katrina highlighted deficiencies in coping/managing intense hurricanes, most particularly in regards to storm surge... and questioning the preparedness of other American coastal cities to deal with hurricanes of increasing intensity.]

4) Superstorm Sandy hit land as a Tropical Storm - the perfect storm in fact - because it combined the collision of two massive storm fronts - and hit at high tide. A freak happening - not a climate extreme. [waldo: care to comment on the possible cause(s) of the 'never before seen path taken... the significant veering inward, instead of out to sea'?]

5) Closer to home, the recent Toronto storm that caused massive flooding was a very localized event that covered very little territory. I personally drove into it - and out of it in a distance of about 15 kilometers. It could have dropped it's rain 50 miles elsewhere and had negligible effects. [waldo: Record rainfall within a short 2-hour duration... described in relation to 'slow moving thunderstorms that refused "to budge"... to move on'. As I've (somewhat exhaustively) detailed, slower-moving weather is associated with jet stream pattern shifts relative to Arctic amplification. If nothing else, the Toronto flooding highlighted just how unprepared Canada's largest city was for such an event... and highlighted its significant infrastructure concerns relative to the threat of increasing weather extremes associated with global warming/climate change.]

6) Posters have already pointed out that the Calgary floods rivaled other floods in the past and were by no means unique to modern times. [waldo: the Southwest Alberta flooding has been described as occurring in relation to relatively recent jet-stream pattern changes related to 'Arctic amplification' (and its underlying causal ties to increased atmospheric GHGs, Arctic sea ice melting and other positive feedbacks).]

Edited July 23, 2013 by waldo

[waldo]

Of course I don't want you to defect this once again....the point is that something natural caused all these issues in the 30s and it wasn't us.

as already mentioned, your tactic has been laid bare. Your reading comprehension difficulty continues to allow you to feign ignorance of what's actually being stated in terms of extreme weather events (by the IPCC, WMO, USGCRP, etc.)... i.e., increases in extreme weather events (as appropriate to the respective event, an increase in frequency, or intensity, or both). Your deflection has also been laid bare - as already highlighted, you continue to reach for your ready go-to, your "natural causes" cop-out/broad sweeping generalization. Amazingly, you're never quite ready/able to fully qualify just what "natural causes" means with regards to the respective events you presume to highlight.

[waldo]

Quotes directly from your precious WMO document..... I guess the red sections aren't ratings? You said the rest is my bluster but unfortunatley you have assumed all the bluster for yourself. Nothing let for me! LMFAO!!!

the rate or compare reference was intended in regards intensity - i.e., the only extremes claim being made is in regards to increasing intensity (devastating and deadliest references... are not hurricane intensity)

but, ya... that's right... you provide the quotes I actually provided to you... where I had to actually go into the full WMO report to temper your wild blustering and over-the-top criticism of the WMO for daring to include a one-sentence reference to Katrina (within a lengthy press release). Where you wigged-out over that simple, basic reference. Where you went over-the-top because Katrina was described as a Cat5 hurricane... which it was, regardless of what level it was upon reaching its second landfall. A reference that was nothing more than to mention it occurring within the context of the decade being highlighted.

[waldo]

How do you want me or ANYONE to explain the relative recent jet stream pattern changes when the studies done on the historical trends can't even explain them. Here is it one more time waldo.....chew on this from the study showing the historical trends.

I'm providing current 2012/2013 study/reference. How stupid does someone have to be to try to compare that to a 2008 article referencing a dated and different 2007 study? Perhaps you should ask yourself that when you trot out and bluster over the quote you've provided, hey?

What you meant to say is your complete lack of knowledge or ability to provide an answer to that very specific and damning question. Rant and rave all you want about arctic amplifciation, jet streams, warming, cooling, hurricanes.....if you can't make a tie to anthropogenic sources then I would have quote you and say "piss off"

Oh...and just to be clear....even your latest video doesn't even touch the topic of anthropogenic sources. How many fails are you going to embarrass yourself with?

how stupid does someone have to be to continue to ignore the repeated multiple qualified statements made that relate inherent increased GHGs and Arctic sea ice decline (and other positive feedbacks) as the principal causal ties to the enhanced warming (Arctic amplification) in high northern latitudes relative to the Northern hemisphere? How stupid does someone have to be to continue to ignore the provided linked study/video that speak directly to that qualification? How stupid does someone have to be to put on a junkyard dog act continuing to ask for qualification that has previously been given... to continue to ask for qualification while emphatically claiming none exists... none has been provided? Again, perhaps you should ask yourself these questions, hey?

from the study you apparently can't read/comprehend:

During the past few decades the Arctic has warmed approximately twice as rapidly as has the entire northern hemisphere [screen and Simmonds, 2010; Serreze et al.,2009], a phenomenon called Arctic Amplification (AA). The widespread warming resulted from a combination of increased greenhouse gases and positive feedbacks involving sea ice, snow, water vapor, and clouds [stroeve et al., 2012].

[waldo]

The peer reviewed study DOES NOT SAY most of that crap that appears and which you quoted for your post from the article. HUGE DIFFERENCE! HUGE!

I trust you won't be offended when I advise I will take the author's interpretation of their study... over your interpretation of their study!

"the chops to address the actual study"....serious waldingo....you didn't even know the name of the study! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Seriously....my stomach is starting to hurt. Have you learned how to apply links yet? Not one of your quotes came from the study....rather from your article. And yet you say I haven't addressed the study. I showed you the three spots where they even mention anthropogenic all of which are very proving to my points.

I would ask if this is all you got....but I know it it. You've got NOTHING! LMFAO!!!!

after having the associations between the article/study/press release explicitly described/detailed for you, you are either purposely disingenuous or an idiot... again, the statement speaks to a study, the link references the name of the article... the article by the same authors of the study... the article/authors providing a direct link to the study. Somehow this has you in perpetual shits&giggles... how trivial and petulant are you?

and again, although it's been stated to you now multiple times, the second study is speaking to physics and underlying physical mechanisms... there isn't any question of applying a causal anthropogenic tie to........... physics!.... physical mechanisms. Somehow, you can't grasp this basic, fundamental point... it's beyond you... beyond your grasp.

.

Fail X 2 !!!!! The study never even mentions the word anthropogenic. I love how you so arrogantly assume that AA implies anthropogenic. Do you know what Arctic Amplification is? Francis defines it in the first sentence of her study

They have OBSERVED some enhanced warming. It is something that is happening. An observation. Now what is causing it to happen? No one actually knows but people have THEORIES. The fact that you take your theory and treat it like fact only showcases your pomposity.

no - you simply do not have the attention span, the ability to follow a discussion, the willingness to actually read posts directed to you in reply, and the reading/comprehension capability to properly understand. See the latter part of this post to highlight your fail - you BigTime fail:

Edited July 23, 2013 by waldo

[waldo]

1. Show me who at the NOAA said that 2001-2010 was the most active hurricane decade since 1855.

2. Show me some of this global data for an increase in exteme weather events.

3. Show me anthropogenic ties to the jet stream shift or the artic amplification.

Come on partner...time to saddle up if you want to ride with the big boys.

1. as related many times over, the onus is on you..... for all the reasons previously described/detailed

2. as related many times over, it is your prerogative to not agree with the findings of such reputable organizations as the IPCC, the USGCRP, the WMO, etc.

3. as related in the most immediate preceding posts, you simply choose to play 'silly buggar' and ignore all previous statements provided... to ignore references provided. Equally, the most immediate preceding posts explicitly speak to the ties - the same ties that were relayed to you several times, the same relayed ties that you chose to ignore... that you couldn't comprehend, the same ties that were available to you within the provided references.

Edited July 23, 2013 by waldo

[waldo]

No backpedal here...its just a case of you not being able to keep up! The world has warmed which is something I have NEVER disputed.

As per the NOAA chart (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201201-201212.png), it has warmed from 1910 all the way up to 1940s....had a 40 year hiatus there until 1980 and then warmed some more until recently. If you look around 1997-1998 it starts to plateau and it stayed there until 2010 or so. If you look after 2010 you start to see a slight cooling dip downward.

Now...unlike you I am not pompous enough to say that it will now continue downward because only time will tell. It may go down but it may very well go back up. But what is certain is that the models and forecasting that the warmies have said based on the CO2 input into the atmosphere will NOT account for this 15 year plateau. How shocking!!

flip-flop, flip-flop! You originally said it hasn't warmed since 1997. When you were challenged to substantiate that, you began your backpedal. Even in your focused isolation on surface temperature only, there is no plateau, there is no 'cooling dip'. As for your linked graphic, could you have found a graphic with any poorer scale/resolution? Here, try the following for a refreshing reality break!

.

As for me explaiing why is something 'Natural'...sorry but science doesn't work that way. Science is able to explain why gravity works or why we have seasons because its already been explained and proven by numerous cycles of reoccurance to make it fact. As for the recent changes which are easily mirrored by past events, we are only begining to understand why these cycles happen. Why do we go through ice ages and then warming periods only to revert back to ice ages? We know that these things happened but not certain why. What do these cycles have to do with extreme weather events? The data to truly answer this in a scientific fashion....the same data that can actually make it a scientific fact....is still years away. But don't let me stop you from speculating and wondering just when the sky will fall.

jeezaz! Can you read? I asked you to qualify your cop-out 'natural causes' go-to. You know... internal variability like ocean currents, atmospheric circulation, etc., or forces like solar radiation or volcanoes, etc. Clearly, it's quite easy for you to just throw out the fall-back "natural causes"... apparently, asking you to qualify that in regards the extreme events you're peddling is something you can't do and/or aren't prepared to do. How convenient for you, while you forever press for causal ties. Yes, how convenient and self-serving of you!

.

[Accountability Now]

as already mentioned, your tactic has been laid bare. Your reading comprehension difficulty continues to allow you to feign ignorance of what's actually being stated in terms of extreme weather events (by the IPCC, WMO, USGCRP, etc.)... i.e., increases in extreme weather events (as appropriate to the respective event, an increase in frequency, or intensity, or both). Your deflection has also been laid bare - as already highlighted, you continue to reach for your ready go-to, your "natural causes" cop-out/broad sweeping generalization. Amazingly, you're never quite ready/able to fully qualify just what "natural causes" means with regards to the respective events you presume to highlight.

And I have already told you that you should replace 'tactic' with 'logic'. Of course I'm still waiting on data showing any of your so called increases in global frequency or intensity or both. But don't let me defer you from your constant deflection from backing up these claims.

[Accountability Now]

the rate or compare reference was intended in regards intensity - i.e., the only extremes claim being made is in regards to increasing intensity (devastating and deadliest references... are not hurricane intensity)

but, ya... that's right... you provide the quotes I actually provided to you... where I had to actually go into the full WMO report to temper your wild blustering and over-the-top criticism of the WMO for daring to include a one-sentence reference to Katrina (within a lengthy press release). Where you wigged-out over that simple, basic reference. Where you went over-the-top because Katrina was described as a Cat5 hurricane... which it was, regardless of what level it was upon reaching its second landfall. A reference that was nothing more than to mention it occurring within the context of the decade being highlighted.

How many times do you need to fail on this before you just take your licks and move on. The WMO used Katrina in the most convenient way to get their point across. They had other more dominant storms they could have used but they took the low road....a road that you continue to travel by backing it.

[Accountability Now]

I'm providing current 2012/2013 study/reference. How stupid does someone have to be to try to compare that to a 2008 article referencing a dated and different 2007 study? Perhaps you should ask yourself that when you trot out and bluster over the quote you've provided, hey?

How stupid does someone have to be to compare a 2007 study to a 2012/2013 study? Well I guess they would have to be waldo-stupid. Since you can hardly remember what you did this morning, I trust you won't remember when you provided the 2000 study showing the 'reliable period for hurricane data' when I had already provided the 2012 study overriding your claim. Have a look below....how stupid is this????!!!

I trust you'll really enjoy the following study extracts:

Is that seriously the best you can do? Honestly? You provided me a paper from 2000? 13 years ago? I guess you have forgotten some of the small work that has been done since then....like say the RE-ANALYSIS project which only started in 2000. Do you possibly think that during this process they started to have a better understanding for what was reliable and unreliable. Is this how far you have stretched your strawman? Wow. My stomach hurts from the laughter!

Of course you could be reminded of some of Landsea's recent work from 2012 and comments AFTER the Re-Analysis:

Quote

The database goes back to 1851, but it is far from being complete and accurate for the entire century and a half. Uncertainty estimates of the best track parameters available for are available for various era in Landsea et al. (2012), Hagen et al. (2012), Torn and Snyder (2012), and Landsea (2012). Moreover, as one goes back further in time in addition to larger uncertainties, biases become more pronounced as well with tropical cyclone frequencies being underreported and the tropical

cyclone intensities being underanalyzed. That is, some storms were missed and many intensities are too low in the pre-aircraft reconnaissance era (1944 for the western half of the basin) and in the pre-satellite era (late-1960s for the entire basin). Even in the last decade or two, new technologies affect the best tracks in a non-trivial way because of our generally improving ability to observe the frequency, intensity, and size of tropical cyclones. See Vecchi and Knutson (2008), Landsea et al. (2010), Vecchi and Knutson (2012), Uhlhorn and Nolan (2012) on methods that have been determined to address some of the undersampling issues that arise in monitoring these mesoscale, oceanic phenomenon.

Of course the MAJOR difference being that in the hurricane example we were both comparing apples to apples discussing the 'reliable data' period. Obviously my recent study and data won that fairly easily. The difference in this example regarding the histrorical jet stream patterns is that your 2012/2013 study doesn't even touch on the topic of HISTORICAL trends. The 2012/2013 study is showing reason and data for the CURRENT trend. Seriously....how stupid doese someone have to be to compare apples to oranges. Really?

from the study you apparently can't read/comprehend:

During the past few decades the Arctic has warmed approximately twice as rapidly as has the entire northern hemisphere [screen and Simmonds, 2010; Serreze et al.,2009], a phenomenon called Arctic Amplification (AA). The widespread warming resulted from a combination of increased greenhouse gases and positive feedbacks involving sea ice, snow, water vapor, and clouds [stroeve et al., 2012].

I hate to bust your balloon there waldo but your cronies are bambozzling you once again. I know that you have such a blind trust in these article which of course is your own personal fail but you really should have inspected the footnote a little better. Again...Francis didn't come up with the idea of the widespread warming resulting from GHG....she cites this to Stroeve et al, 2012. So looking at her references we see the title of that article to be "The Arctic’s rapidly shrinking sea ice cover". So upon inspection of this study....what was actually said was:

Arctic air temperatures are rising in all seasons. This is linked to more open water in September and in turn, a thinner ice cover in spring. Earlier development of open water in the melt season enhances the summer ice-albedo feedback, promoting even more open water in September.

She does mention this:

The downward trend in September ice extent is best explained from a combination of natural variability in air temperature, atmospheric and ocean circulation, and forcing from rising concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs; e.g. Serreze et al. 2007a, .

The comment above says that GHG play a portion in this warming....not all. The quesiton is....how much? Of course there is no answer in this paper, rather the answer may lie in the Serreze et al 2007, a,b from where Stoeve cites this work. And the wild goose chase continues.

On a different note....ever notice how closely tied these so called independent researchers are? Francis cites Stroeve, Strove cites Serreze, Serreze cites all of them. I would love to see who actually did the reviews on these to make them 'peer reviewed'. Nice tight little community...aint it?

[Accountability Now]

after having the associations between the article/study/press release explicitly described/detailed for you, you are either purposely disingenuous or an idiot... again, the statement speaks to a study, the link references the name of the article... the article by the same authors of the study... the article/authors providing a direct link to the study. Somehow this has you in perpetual shits&giggles... how trivial and petulant are you?

Hmmm....how can I dumb this down so that you can understand it? Its kind an athlete doing all sorts of trash talking to the media and then not backing any of it up in the game. The study is the game. I can present countless articles that debunk AGW but you don't give them the time of day because they aren't peer reviewed. Now you actually want me to focus on the non-peer reviewed study. Doesn't surpise me that you would flip flop like this.

[Accountability Now]

1. as related many times over, the onus is on you..... for all the reasons previously described/detailed

2. as related many times over, it is your prerogative to not agree with the findings of such reputable organizations as the IPCC, the USGCRP, the WMO, etc.

3. as related in the most immediate preceding posts, you simply choose to play 'silly buggar' and ignore all previous statements provided... to ignore references provided. Equally, the most immediate preceding posts explicitly speak to the ties - the same ties that were relayed to you several times, the same relayed ties that you chose to ignore... that you couldn't comprehend, the same ties that were available to you within the provided references.

So you can't meet any of the challenges. Ok. Dually noted.

[Accountability Now]

flip-flop, flip-flop! You originally said it hasn't warmed since 1997. When you were challenged to substantiate that, you began your backpedal. Even in your focused isolation on surface temperature only, there is no plateau, there is no 'cooling dip'. As for your linked graphic, could you have found a graphic with any poorer scale/resolution? Here, try the following for a refreshing reality break!

.

jeezaz! Can you read? I asked you to qualify your cop-out 'natural causes' go-to. You know... internal variability like ocean currents, atmospheric circulation, etc., or forces like solar radiation or volcanoes, etc. Clearly, it's quite easy for you to just throw out the fall-back "natural causes"... apparently, asking you to qualify that in regards the extreme events you're peddling is something you can't do and/or aren't prepared to do. How convenient for you, while you forever press for causal ties. Yes, how convenient and self-serving of you!

.

Hold on for a second here.....I provided a detailed chart from the NOAA that shows the titles of the chart, units and a LONG term scale and you actually try to insult me because it DOESN'T zone in on your desired period. You don't even mention where you got your chart from and again failed to provide a link for the charts. Wow....how manipulative can you be?

And yet you go on to say there is no plateau or no cooling period on the NOAA chart. This explains your reading comprehension and general inabilities.....you obvioulsy can't see. There is an almost flat blue line running across the chart starting around 2000 and goes to the end 2012. I say almost flat because it actually trends slightly downward suggesting a cooling pattern. Keep trying though.

But yes...let's look at your hypersensitive chart for a second...shall we. The first chart...which of course is not labelled and doesn't allow anyone to actually know what the hell it is....shows the peak in 1997 and a peak in 2010 with a slight increase from 1997 to 2010. Then your second chart which again has ZERO labels tells us those two same peaks exist but there is a downward trend. Which one is it waldo? Of if you combine them....does the increase cancel out the decrease making.....oh wait for it....a plateau? Yikes....you really aren't good at this. Perhaps a more suited thing would be knitting or a stamp collection?

jeezaz! Can you read? I asked you to qualify your cop-out 'natural causes' go-to. You know... internal variability like ocean currents, atmospheric circulation, etc., or forces like solar radiation or volcanoes, etc. Clearly, it's quite easy for you to just throw out the fall-back "natural causes"... apparently, asking you to qualify that in regards the extreme events you're peddling is something you can't do and/or aren't prepared to do. How convenient for you, while you forever press for causal ties. Yes, how convenient and self-serving of you!

And there it is...a perfect example of your deflection. We have started this entire debate discussion talking about whether man is causing this or not. I have been able to show you a number of times that the frequencies and intensities of past extremes have been the same or outnumbered the current media frenzied extremes. But now you need to me qualify these natural extremes? Of course this is a good thing because it proves that you have accepted the natural causes and are now trying to fight within that realm. I will accept your surrender.

As for me....I'm off for a couple weeks so don't be surprised that I'm not responding to you. I will be back to hold you accountable for all of your shortcomings...which is a lot.

[waldo]

oh my! The silence is deafening... nothing more to say on the 2 studies you've beaked off about for pages now... with your incessant junk-yard dog act! As I said, the waldo likes to reel in the bait line every once in a while and squash your ongoing nonsense... as in NO Accountability Now!

your page-after-page nattering asking for anthropogenic linkage just blew up in your face... blew up, reeeeeal good! I kept repeating the same substantiation, over and over and over again! You kept repeating, ad nauseum, that the Arctic amplification study didn't support my statements... because... wait for it - your simplistic search couldn't find the actual word "anthropogenic" in the study!!! Clearly, your limited reading/comprehension ability and basic understandings failed you, yet once again!

so, in closing this lil' chapter of your ongoing nonsense, I'll accept your, 'tail between your legs' silence as an admission that the 2 studies speak to, (1) changing jet stream patterns are associated with Arctic amplification (enhanced Arctic warming) and (2) a possible physical mechanism has been determined to qualify theoretical support for the changing jet stream patterns associated with enhanced Arctic warming.

... I'll try to find time later on tonight to cycle on back through the rest of your latest "gems"!

[Accountability Now]

oh my! The silence is deafening... nothing more to say on the 2 studies you've beaked off about for pages now... with your incessant junk-yard dog act! As I said, the waldo likes to reel in the bait line every once in a while and squash your ongoing nonsense... as in NO Accountability Now!

your page-after-page nattering asking for anthropogenic linkage just blew up in your face... blew up, reeeeeal good! I kept repeating the same substantiation, over and over and over again! You kept repeating, ad nauseum, that the Arctic amplification study didn't support my statements... because... wait for it - your simplistic search couldn't find the actual word "anthropogenic" in the study!!! Clearly, your limited reading/comprehension ability and basic understandings failed you, yet once again!

so, in closing this lil' chapter of your ongoing nonsense, I'll accept your, 'tail between your legs' silence as an admission that the 2 studies speak to, (1) changing jet stream patterns are associated with Arctic amplification (enhanced Arctic warming) and (2) a possible physical mechanism has been determined to qualify theoretical support for the changing jet stream patterns associated with enhanced Arctic warming.

... I'll try to find time later on tonight to cycle on back through the rest of your latest "gems"!

Clearly you didn't have the ability to read anything. Ol' AN broke through your sham of studies like I did with your WMO one. Like I said...you keep serving up the flops and I'll keep slamming them down.