Accountability Now Posted July 21, 2013 Report Share Posted July 21, 2013 (edited) In that vein, do you have a natural cause for the 2012 drought one youd like to put forward to allow you to deflect away from considerations of it being influenced by increased warming? The same natural causes that brought the 1930s drought. As stated before, if you think that a shifting jet stream is causing the extreme events of today then why wouldn't it be reasonable to beleive that same effect happened back then? Of course....there was no global warming back then and the extremes were worse. of course, the main thrust of the quote, which you completely ignore, is that in comparing the two droughts, the 2012 drought did not have the extenuating influence of poor farming practices/land usage. As is your repeat pattern, you bring forward these past events, while initially never stating any causal links/ties for them. My quote reference offers a root cause for the 30s Dust Bowl drought and extreme heat ocean patterns; with that root cause amplified and extended by poor farming/land use practices. You subsequently simply state the cause as a most non-specific, heat wave and drought. Aside from you being non-specific the drought was the cause of the drought! Huh! No...the main thing that you continue to ignore in your grand deflection is that the 1930 drought was the WORST drought of all time. Whatever natural cause that was behind that drought could easily becausing this one. However, if man was adding an extra component then we would be seeing the effects of 1930 plus X. But we are not. We are seeing extremes less than the 1930s. Edited July 21, 2013 by Accountability Now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted July 21, 2013 Report Share Posted July 21, 2013 you keep harping on hurricane Katrina, while making the broadest of charge/claim within the most sweeping of generalizations. If you have a direct and specific concern where a reputable organization(s) or scientist(s) exceeded your personal (undeclared) measuring stick on how hurricane Katrina should be discussed, please bring something forward. Something… anything… other than your continued unsubstantiated claims (i.e. broad-sweeping claims/generalizations). Clearly, in the other thread, you had a meltdown because the WMO simply included it in a collective grouping reference of examples of extreme events that occurred in the recent 2001-2010 decade….. to which I relayed to you the actual rather benign comments concerning hurricane Katrina within the full WMO report. Talk about your over-reach and manufactured outrage! . Wrong once again waldo. I have made very direct claims using objective numbers to prove that Katrina doesn't belong in discussion tab. I conclusively showed that there was worse hurricanes in that very year and a much worse storm the year before. But the warmies sure like using Katrina because the man-made levees failed and those poor people living below sea level got levelled. And what were those benign comments again....that Katrina was the worst of the Decade? Yes....let's just look at deaths and cost....what ever is most convenient to scare people...right. I mean seriously....who cares about objective truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted July 21, 2013 Report Share Posted July 21, 2013 it’s quite telling to have you now, apparently, accepting to a shifting jet stream tie to extreme weather… or at least accepting to the tie so long as its underlying causal mechanism is only a natural effect… you won’t even entertain the possibility of a human induced contributing factor… or even the suggestion the underlying mechanism may reflect on both natural and human influence. Quite telling, indeed, since you were the guy in the other recent thread, who so ridiculed any suggestion that the jet stream could have influence over recent extreme weather events. How consistent of you! . I've never been against the shifting jet stream as a cause. I am just against anthropogenic sources being blamed as the reason for this shift. As for not accpepting natural and human influence, I take harsh exceptions to that. I have only focused on the natural causes because I believe those are the significant reasons we are seeing these extremes. Lets put it this way...these extemes would not be happening if you took the natural causes out of way. Conversely you make it out like the anthropogenic sources are the ONLY reason these are happening. Any suggestion of natural causes is met with harsh critisicm and sarcasm which clearly shows that you have no ability have an open mind on this. I provided a study reference link as well as the video… apparently, your keen observation ability has you completely missing the study link... and, of course, you go off kilter from there! In any case, your description of the video is quite telling… to the point you’re simply going off the title of the video. Clearly, the video reflects directly on the study (that’s why I included it), with the lead author speaking directly to study observations relative to Arctic amplification. That you would ask a mind-numbing question about anthropogenic causes, clearly shows you have no understanding of Arctic amplification and/or that the study authors were not providing an underlying attribution for the observed effects/physical mechanisms of jet stream pattern changes… those ultimately caused by the temperature differential between enhanced Arctic warming and temperatures in the mid-latitudes. The study provides the linkage between climate change, changing jet stream patterns and raised chances for prolonged and intensified extreme weather events. It’s a shame you couldn’t get past the title of the video! At that point I was tired of your wild goose chases by improperly applying links to the right study. As for the video....we see yet another deflection. Why did you provide the video or the study? To provide proof of anthropogenic sources that cause the jet stream to shift....and of course.....there wasn't any. She didn't say it ONCE. Now...as for the actual study. You do realize what the title of the study was...right? Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes. Hmmm....so what is causing the exteme weather....oh....arctic amplification. Maybe she goes on to talk about how Arctic amplifciation is caused by man. Nope...reading through the study you will not see the word 'man' or 'anthropogenic' appear at all. So I asked you to provide proof of anthropogenic source.....and you came up with this? A study and a video that don't even mention it. EPIC FAIL!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted July 21, 2013 Report Share Posted July 21, 2013 (edited) what kind of a trivial BS play are you going for here? The article is written by 2 of the study co-authors… with them speaking to their study… the article provides a link to the study. I reference the article as it gives a more layman’s interpretation of the study. All co-authors of the study are affiliated with the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. I specifically stated this study provided theoretical support to the aforementioned study (re: the study on Arctic amplification, changing jet stream patterns, and raised chances for extreme weather events)… it speaks to the underlying physical mechanisms/processes… being driven, ultimately, by Arctic amplification, by increased/accelerated Arctic sea ice melting as a result of increased atmospheric greenhouse gases resulting from anthropogenic sources. That theoretical support reference inherently presumes on degrees of uncertainty… the linked article included full caveats. This, your latest accusation, parallels your earlier inability to associate the url of a provided graphic to its website origination point… which caused you to brazenly claim I was “hiding the source” – notwithstanding the graphic included the logo/name of the source!!! . Trivial BS? One is a peer reviewed study and the other is an article. All of your quotes came from the ARTICLE....not the STUDY! Even if it has the same authors, the article is NOT peer reviewed and goes on to say so many things that the peer reviewed study DOES NOT. Moreover, they never actually make any grounds on implicating anthropogenic sources in their study....which again is what I asked you to provide. FAIL!!!! You clearly stated that the study's title was Weather extremes: atmospheric waves and climate change when in fact the title of the real study didn't even have 'climate change' in the title. Seriously....they teach how to do a web link in elementary now. I have to believe that you specifcally flipped these titles around so that it sounded MUCH worse than the study really is. Honestly....your lack of comprehension is appalling! You expect anyone to take you seriously when you mess up this bad? I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt on this but as you said, you have screwed up so many other times on this. Its apparent that you are just clueless. Edited July 21, 2013 by Accountability Now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted July 21, 2013 Report Share Posted July 21, 2013 I’ll leave you to the mind-numbing/stupid exercise you went through in posting extensive quote extracts, comparing the article to the study. The article doesn't counter/contradict anything within the study… go figure… study authors wrote the article! I know....its challenging for you to read through this stuff. You should just leave it to the pros. PS....I don't care what the non-peer reviewed article says. I care that the peer reviewed study steered away from anthropogenic sources being the cause. Again...I was asking for you to show me that man was causing this. And you served up this flop? Fail. you botched your interpretation of the earlier study… you've doubled down with another misinterpretation of this study. Well done – a 2fer! The study is about underlying physical mechanisms… identifying the underlying physical mechanisms, those that reflect upon the established linkages between climate change and the greater chances for prolonged and intensified extreme weather events. The study caveats aren’t in consideration of whether the physical mechanisms are anthropogenic related… they’re physical mechanisms! The study caveats are with respect to whether or not the authors have properly identified the underlying physical mechanisms. And, as all climate scientists do, these authors also don’t discount a possible contributing influence of natural variability. Who botched what? Seriously.....you called your article a study. You probably didn't even know until I showed you! LMFAO! So are you able to show me how these studies prove that anthropogenic sources are the cause of the jet stream shifting? I guess not because neither study says boo about it. FAIL!!!! I trust you’ll enjoy the related study press release from the Potsdam Institute: So first an article and now a press release? First let me commend you on the proper linkage of this one. You must have had a 7 year old show you how to do it. I must also really commend your authors who appear to be so brave and bold in non-peer reviewed article and non-peer reviewed press release for them to make such claims. However, once they get to their study their tails curl up between their legs and they say this: Quote At the same time, we cannot exclude the possibility that a substantial component of recently observed trends, e.g., of the surface air temperature on spatial scales smaller than continental, may result from intrinsic natural variability (39) and not just from the process of global warming mostly due to anthropogenic forcing that we discussed above. Moreover, the considered quasiresonance is not the only possible mechanism for amplification of zonal wave numbers m=6 −8. Man...that is hard core! I really think they are taking a hard stand position on this......or maybe NOT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted July 21, 2013 Report Share Posted July 21, 2013 out of my rotation? Uhhh… no, not a chance. I am heartened that you weren't scared off… that you had, as you say, “the time or desire to actually look into them”. You looked – you clearly failed… big time! Well done. . Just keep serving up these flops waldo and I'll keep slamming them down! I think this makes it 4 and 0! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted July 21, 2013 Report Share Posted July 21, 2013 nice deflecting bluster. You drop these outlandish, long refuted, denier gems, without providing any substantiation. So as not to have you derail yet another thread, you’re challenged/requested to consider taking your unsubstantiated claims outside this thread and to provide support for them elsewhere (in a new thread you actually initiate, perhaps). Apparently, you take exception to being called on your BS – go figure. . You have yet to face a single challenge that I have presented to you. NOT ONE. By the way...have you found out who in the NOAA actually said it was the most active decade since 1855? Just curious.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted July 21, 2013 Report Share Posted July 21, 2013 well, yes… obviously. When you outright deny global warming, you’re clearly not setting out to prove it exists! But really, c’mon… who actually denies it’s warming? To do so, you’d have to be one of those guys out on the far fringe… out on the fringe of the fringe. I note your anecdote is not at all self-serving… and it doesn’t fit to your agenda, at all. Fer sure! Actually....if you look back to what I said....I said YOUR global warming BS.....as in waldo's global warming BS. The crap you spew on this forum is applaling. If you once....just once acknowledged that the science is not settled and that anthropogenic global warming is JUST A THEORY.....then things would be fine. I don't deny that the world has seen a warming trend but I do have serious doubts that man's involvement is causing it or these so called extremes you warmies keep flaunting. Hence the reason why I continually ask you to prove that man caused it and you continually fail! As for the anecdote....I never did share that one directly with you because I didn't think you would be able to grasp the concept of actually have a face to face conversation with someone. One day though.....one day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted July 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2013 The same natural causes that brought the 1930s drought. As stated before, if you think that a shifting jet stream is causing the extreme events of today then why wouldn't it be reasonable to beleive that same effect happened back then? Of course....there was no global warming back then and the extremes were worse. No...the main thing that you continue to ignore in your grand deflection is that the 1930 drought was the WORST drought of all time. Whatever natural cause that was behind that drought could easily becausing this one. However, if man was adding an extra component then we would be seeing the effects of 1930 plus X. But we are not. We are seeing extremes less than the 1930s. I described your tactic... the common denier tactic to deflect away any considerations of today's increasing weather extremes being contributed to by global warming/climate change. Again, your tactic is to pull out some past extreme and shout, 'it's happened before... today's extreme is less than before... today's extremes are no biggees/no problemo'. Your tactic is all about ignoring the increasing number of today's weather extremes. as I stated, you simply bring the dates/events forward while never providing a natural attribution... saying it's "just natural" is your cop-out. You need to describe the nature of the natural 'forces' behind your "just natural". It was I that actually provided you the principal causal tie behind the 30s drought - it was the jet-stream... according to the study/scientists I referenced... those using the models you so chastised (in your denier way). As stated, the study described the jet-stream alteration as a result of, "below-average ocean temperatures in the tropical Pacific and warmer than average ocean temperatures in the Atlantic, which acted together to alter the path of the jet stream and bring fewer precipitation-bearing storms to the Central U.S." Of course, the study/models also showcased that the lengthy, multiple-years 30's drought couldn't be explained totally by the jet-stream; that, man's land use/farming practices exacerbated the drought in terms of intensity and duration. The main point that you're avoiding, that you're deflecting from, is the study/models attributed a defined/specific natural causal tie for the 30s jet stream alteration... if you accept the jet-stream as a cause for the 2012 drought, what defined/specific natural causal tie are you attributing to the jet stream alteration?... defined and specific? Just qualify it... go beyond your deflecting, cop-out... your "it's just natural". Define and specify it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted July 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2013 Wrong once again waldo. I have made very direct claims using objective numbers to prove that Katrina doesn't belong in discussion tab. I conclusively showed that there was worse hurricanes in that very year and a much worse storm the year before. But the warmies sure like using Katrina because the man-made levees failed and those poor people living below sea level got levelled. And what were those benign comments again....that Katrina was the worst of the Decade? Yes....let's just look at deaths and cost....what ever is most convenient to scare people...right. I mean seriously....who cares about objective truth. the only example on the table is the WMO report that simply mentioned hurricane Katrina within the context of occurring within the decade the report highlighted, 2001-2010... it doesn't rate or compare the hurricane. The rest is just your bluster. You've been challenged several times to go beyond your bluster and provide examples where reputable organizations and scientists have gone beyond your personal undefined measuring bar on just how hurricane Katrina can be spoken of/categorized. You refuse and continue to fall-back with unsubstantiated, broad-sweeping generalizations. As is your way, you are never/rarely specific and prefer to simply state your personal opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted July 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2013 I've never been against the shifting jet stream as a cause. I am just against anthropogenic sources being blamed as the reason for this shift. As for not accpepting natural and human influence, I take harsh exceptions to that. I have only focused on the natural causes because I believe those are the significant reasons we are seeing these extremes. Lets put it this way...these extemes would not be happening if you took the natural causes out of way. Conversely you make it out like the anthropogenic sources are the ONLY reason these are happening. Any suggestion of natural causes is met with harsh critisicm and sarcasm which clearly shows that you have no ability have an open mind on this. interesting! If you were, as you say, "never against the jet stream as a cause", why did you so wig-out in the other thread when it was mentioned... why did you so ridicule the reference/idea of the jet stream linkage? Your flip-flop has been noted previously and is now, once again, noted. You say, "just take the natural causes out of the way" and there would be no increasing extremes today. What natural causes?... oh, you mean your "just natural causes" cop-out/deflection, right? As before, be definite/be specific... what defined/specific natural causes are behind the relatively recent jet stream pattern changes being observed? Go beyond your go-to cop-out/deflection... define and specify them! . At that point I was tired of your wild goose chases by improperly applying links to the right study. As for the video....we see yet another deflection. Why did you provide the video or the study? To provide proof of anthropogenic sources that cause the jet stream to shift....and of course.....there wasn't any. She didn't say it ONCE. Now...as for the actual study. You do realize what the title of the study was...right? Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes. Hmmm....so what is causing the exteme weather....oh....arctic amplification. Maybe she goes on to talk about how Arctic amplifciation is caused by man. Nope...reading through the study you will not see the word 'man' or 'anthropogenic' appear at all. So I asked you to provide proof of anthropogenic source.....and you came up with this? A study and a video that don't even mention it. EPIC FAIL!!!!!!!! no - you simply missed the study link provided... and, of course, you devolved from there. I've advised several times what Arctic amplification is... you no longer have any excuse to fall-back on your ignorance of the topic/discussion. You are now in flat-out avoidance, bordering on the obtuse. I note your selective quote extract purposely avoided this same summary, as follows... that you would do so, while posturing and having the unmitigated gall to question... to continue to ask... for an anthropogenic source/tie, is perhaps one of the more revealing examples of your overall displayed lack of reading/comprehension abilities. Again, in quoting back you selectively avoid this paragraph: clearly, the Arctic is warming at a rate greater than any global area, particularly in relation to mid-latitude areas... the rate of Arctic warming is twice that of the global rate of warming. My post referencing the study speaking to Arctic amplification has been provided to correlate enhanced Arctic warming (relative to human caused accelerated Arctic sea ice melting and subsequent feedback mechanisms), to observed changes in jet stream patterns. By its very nature, the jet stream is fuelled by the temperature gradient (the difference), between the Arctic and mid-latitudes… and by its very nature, changing that temperature gradient difference alters the jet stream pattern. The study showed the jet stream pattern changes in relation to enhanced Arctic warming and the resulting temperature differential relative to mid-latitudes… the jet stream pattern change shows the jet stream becoming “wavier” in terms of steeper troughs and higher ridges (more pronounced north/south swings), bringing warmer air from the south further north than ‘typical’ and bringing cooler air from the Arctic further south than ‘typical’. As well as a slowed westerly component of upper-level winds. given your most significantly displayed reading comprehension difficulties, repeated over many threads now, let's see if you can also avoid/ignore the following visual aid... directly speaks to Arctic amplification and references this same study/research/scientists you're failing over. A visual aid... just for you... put together by EarthNow . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted July 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2013 Trivial BS? One is a peer reviewed study and the other is an article. All of your quotes came from the ARTICLE....not the STUDY! Even if it has the same authors, the article is NOT peer reviewed and goes on to say so many things that the peer reviewed study DOES NOT. Moreover, they never actually make any grounds on implicating anthropogenic sources in their study....which again is what I asked you to provide. FAIL!!!! You clearly stated that the study's title was Weather extremes: atmospheric waves and climate change when in fact the title of the real study didn't even have 'climate change' in the title. Seriously....they teach how to do a web link in elementary now. I have to believe that you specifcally flipped these titles around so that it sounded MUCH worse than the study really is. Honestly....your lack of comprehension is appalling! You expect anyone to take you seriously when you mess up this bad? I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt on this but as you said, you have screwed up so many other times on this. Its apparent that you are just clueless. no - study authors wrote the article... which in no way counters the study. The article links to the study... the article is intended for more of a layman audience/understanding. Clearly, you most certainly don't have the displayed chops to presume to address actual studies. You're simply playing 'silly buggar' over this. But that's all you've got... I guess that's why you continue to go with your strengths! your response simply highlights you don't understand; it again showcases your most significant reading and comprehension difficulty, rising to the top. Again, the study speaks to the underlying physics... the underlying physical mechanisms. In this case, this study, there is no question of attaching anthropogenic attribution to... physical mechanisms. This study, the second of two studies provided, as I've stated, provides theoretical support for the (possible) underlying physical mechanisms relative to the first study... the first study which does speak to the anthropogenic linkage (re: Arctic amplification). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted July 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2013 PS....I don't care what the non-peer reviewed article says. I care that the peer reviewed study steered away from anthropogenic sources being the cause. Again...I was asking for you to show me that man was causing this. And you served up this flop? Fail. no - again, you don't understand... this appears to be well beyond your showcased limited reading and comprehension capabilities - beyond your grasp. Again, as I stated: "the study speaks to the underlying physics... the underlying physical mechanisms. In this case, this study, there is no question of attaching anthropogenic attribution to... physical mechanisms. This study, the second of two studies provided, as I've stated, provides theoretical support for the (possible) underlying physical mechanisms relative to the first study... the first study which does speak to the anthropogenic linkage (re: Arctic amplification)." Who botched what? Seriously.....you called your article a study. You probably didn't even know until I showed you! LMFAO! no - your silly buggar act will not prevail. That you would even think that this has significance... that it has bearing! This simply shows what little value you add. The following quote is what I wrote... and you've huffed and puffed over it now through multiple threads. You actually think it's relevant that the title of the link is the article, rather than the study... where the article is the study authors describing their study (to a layman audience/understanding level), while providing a direct link to their actual study... where the article content does not counter/contradict anything within the study. You actually think this is relevant, has significance! Oh my. Again, this is exactly what I wrote: providing theoretical support to the above mentioned 2012 study (by Dr. Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University), the study from the Pottsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany: Weather extremes: atmospheric waves and climate change So are you able to show me how these studies prove that anthropogenic sources are the cause of the jet stream shifting? I guess not because neither study says boo about it. FAIL!!!! clearly, you don't understand... you can't read/comprehend... this is obviously beyond your meager grasp. Again, as stated: "the study speaks to the underlying physics... the underlying physical mechanisms. In this case, this study, there is no question of attaching anthropogenic attribution to... physical mechanisms. This study, the second of two studies provided, as I've stated, provides theoretical support for the (possible) underlying physical mechanisms relative to the first study... the first study which does speak to the anthropogenic linkage (re: Arctic amplification)." So first an article and now a press release? First let me commend you on the proper linkage of this one. You must have had a 7 year old show you how to do it. I must also really commend your authors who appear to be so brave and bold in non-peer reviewed article and non-peer reviewed press release for them to make such claims. yes, again, this press release: ... you're now in full-blown deflection mode, bordering on the conspiratorial. We've come full-circle on your prior claims of climate scientists committing fraud, scientific malfeasance, manipulation, etc.. The lead author is quoted several times in this press release... exactly what do you state the lead author of the study is taking liberties with? Given your clearly deficient capabilities in interpreting the two studies provided/referenced, just what has the lead author stated that you "understand" to be unsupported within his/their study? Be precise/specific - sure you can! . However, once they get to their study their tails curl up between their legs and they say this: At the same time, we cannot exclude the possibility that a substantial component of recently observed trends, e.g., of the surface air temperature on spatial scales smaller than continental, may result from intrinsic natural variability (39) and not just from the process of global warming mostly due to anthropogenic forcing that we discussed above. Moreover, the considered quasiresonance is not the only possible mechanism for amplification of zonal wave numbers m=6 −8.Man...that is hard core! I really think they are taking a hard stand position on this......or maybe NOT! no - this is simply you further showcasing you haven't a clue... that you can't read/comprehend a subject well beyond your grasp. I believe this is now the third time you've quoted this study extract... of course, you've never actually stated what you interpret it to mean, what actual significance it has on the study, proper. I could ask/challenge you to state what you think that quote really means... but why bother, since you would just avoid it to no end. Of course, what the quoted statements actually refer to is a qualified distinction between observed surface air temperature trends, global versus local/regional..... where, of course, local/regional temperature trends may also take on the influence of local/regional level natural variability within those temperature trends. This is an obvious statement within the broader context of climate science and temperature monitoring/analysis. And yes, as you say, "this is hard core"... this is you showcasing your hardcore lack of understanding/interpretation! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted July 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2013 Just keep serving up these flops waldo and I'll keep slamming them down! I think this makes it 4 and 0! no - you don't understand, you haven't a clue... you can't read/comprehend - this subject is beyond your grasp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted July 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2013 You have yet to face a single challenge that I have presented to you. NOT ONE. By the way...have you found out who in the NOAA actually said it was the most active decade since 1855? Just curious.... 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted July 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2013 Actually....if you look back to what I said.... 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted July 21, 2013 Report Share Posted July 21, 2013 (edited) Can you give me an example of an extreme weather occurance and how global warming caused it? I see Old Waldo is getting schooled again - now with "Climate Extremes" ....you might have trouble getting a straight answer out of him... 1) Yes, global temperatures have plateaued for 15 years 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. 3) Going back more than a decade, North America has been in a cycle of very low hurricane activity. 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. 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. 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. Climate extremes are nothing more than the media's hyped-up attempts to maintain readership - but like old Waldo, they've always been dupes for the alarmist community - and those clever bandits need to change the channel from the going-stale-quickly catastrophic human-induced Global Warming..... Edited July 22, 2013 by Keepitsimple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted July 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2013 (edited) I see Old Waldo is getting schooled again I see that Waldo is once again being schooled Can't say I'm disappointed to see old Waldo getting schooled on so many fronts, hey? Simple, you need new material! Your ongoing drive-by pattern belies your inability to just move on... your inability to just get over the many past waldo 'schooling' lessons you've been on the receiving end of. Get over it, Simple! 1) Yes, global temperatures have plateaued for 15 years here... have another, as you say, 'schooling's', hey: (as below, past 15 years from 2 of the principal global surface temperature datasets; from NASA and the Hadley Center, respectively). If you want to update your denier talking point to speak directly to warming rate comparisons, one can also zero in on your purposeful isolated focus on global surface temperature... while you ignore the >90% of warming that goes into the ocean... while I highlight the observed increasing temperatures of respective ocean layers. . Edited July 22, 2013 by waldo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted July 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2013 3) Going back more than a decade, North America has been in a cycle of very low hurricane activity. no. In regards your highlighting of the North Atlantic Basin... in terms of a pointed distinction between activity, frequency and intensity... the only increasing extremes claim being made is in regards to an increase in the intensity of hurricanes. Speaking to your expressed reference to 'hurricane activity', per the following U.S. NOAA graph: during the 1995-2012 period, hurricane seasons have averaged ~15 named storms, 8 hurricanes and 4 major hurricanes, with an 'Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) index' of 151% of the median. NOAA classified 12 of the 18 seasons since 1995 as above normal, with eight being very active (i.e., defined by ACE > 165% of median)... with only 2 seasons since 1995 below normal (1997 and 2009). as for the claimed increase in intensity, I previously put forward related statements supporting the claim; statements from the IPCC, World Meteorological Organization and the USGCRP. I also offered a study example (one of several available) that speaks directly to the increase in hurricane intensity - as below, a partial extract of a previous post: one of the most recent studies confirming an increasing trend in more severe/intense Atlantic hurricanes (Cat4-5 versus Cat1-2 hurricane categories)... adding to a considerable weight of other studies completed in recent years: => March 2013 - Journal: Climate Dynamics - Recent intense hurricane response to global climate change (Greg Holland, Cindy L. Bruyère - U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, NESL/NCAR): data focus is on the more robust/detailed period of satellite coverage from 1975 on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted July 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2013 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: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted July 22, 2013 Report Share Posted July 22, 2013 (edited) Waldo - couldn't help but take a peek at your "responses". Illustrative of the desperate attempts to keep the alarmist narrative alive..... feeble attemps to change the channel from pragmatic observations.....it's laughable: 1) Temperatures have plateaued? No sirree - the heat is buried in the ocean. 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. Room for doubt? Nope, the "science is settled". No need to cut and paste further on this one 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! 3) Your chart of "Natural Catastrophes" - from an insurance company? If you think Big Oil is biased, try Big Insurance. Why not stick to the original question put forward by a fellow poster - just point us to a couple of "Climate Extremes" that were specifically caused by Global Warming - extremes that have never occurred before. One would be a good start. 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. Link: http://ggweather.com/climate/extremes_us.htm. When some of these records start to fall, then we can talk about extremes. Edited July 22, 2013 by Keepitsimple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted July 22, 2013 Report Share Posted July 22, 2013 (edited) I described your tactic... the common denier tactic to deflect away any considerations of today's increasing weather extremes being contributed to by global warming/climate change. Again, your tactic is to pull out some past extreme and shout, 'it's happened before... today's extreme is less than before... today's extremes are no biggees/no problemo'. Your tactic is all about ignoring the increasing number of today's weather extremes. What increase weather extremes? You have yet to prove that in ANY regard nevermind on this GLOBAL scale that you keep preaching about. How many times do I have to ask....show me your global data supporting this. The only thing you bring up is local/regional examples which I completely bash you on. You call it a tactic but I think you just know your argument is so weak that you arlready know where we are going to pick you apart. Its usually where you are the weakest which just happens to be with logic. as I stated, you simply bring the dates/events forward while never providing a natural attribution... saying it's "just natural" is your cop-out. You need to describe the nature of the natural 'forces' behind your "just natural". It was I that actually provided you the principal causal tie behind the 30s drought - it was the jet-stream... according to the study/scientists I referenced... Are you completely daft or are you just that bored that you like play games on here? It happened in the 30s....how much anthropogenic force was at play then? Are you actually suggesting that the issues in the 1930s were caused by man too? They were natural...plain and simple. Now what the science behind the 'natural' causes is a guess at this point because the jet stream wasn't well known at that point. They didn't have the data nor did they even know entirely what the were dealing with in the 1930s and it wasn't until WW2 that they started to realize the pattern and nature of the jet stream. Could it have been the jet stream....maybe but zero data will back it up. Of course if you don't want to believe me then lets resort back to your hero Jeff Masters. He comments on a 2006 sutdy put forth measuring historical trends in the jet streams from 1979-2001. The authors of the study discuss the effects in this sliver of time but state the very important point that: However, the authors were careful not to say how much of this shift in the jet stream was due to natural causes versus human-caused climate change. It is unknown if the jet stream has natural decades-long changes in its path that could account for the observed poleward shift. http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/jet-stream-moved-northwards-270-miles-in-22-years-climate-change-to-b 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. Edited July 22, 2013 by Accountability Now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted July 22, 2013 Report Share Posted July 22, 2013 the only example on the table is the WMO report that simply mentioned hurricane Katrina within the context of occurring within the decade the report highlighted, 2001-2010... it doesn't rate or compare the hurricane. The rest is just your bluster. Oh really? It doesn't rate it? Are you sure? I'll give you a second to reconsider.......ok....time is up. Quotes directly from your precious WMO document. 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 - 280km/h Deadliest hurricane to strike the USA since 1928. 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!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted July 22, 2013 Report Share Posted July 22, 2013 interesting! If you were, as you say, "never against the jet stream as a cause", why did you so wig-out in the other thread when it was mentioned... why did you so ridicule the reference/idea of the jet stream linkage? Your flip-flop has been noted previously and is now, once again, noted. You say, "just take the natural causes out of the way" and there would be no increasing extremes today. What natural causes?... oh, you mean your "just natural causes" cop-out/deflection, right? As before, be definite/be specific... what defined/specific natural causes are behind the relatively recent jet stream pattern changes being observed? Go beyond your go-to cop-out/deflection... define and specify them! I have always been against your misguided approach that the changing jet stream was due to anthropogenic causes. I have never flip flopped on that. 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. However, the authors were careful not to say how much of this shift in the jet stream was due to natural causes versus human-caused climate change. It is unknown if the jet stream has natural decades-long changes in its path that could account for the observed poleward shift no - you simply missed the study link provided... and, of course, you devolved from there. I've advised several times what Arctic amplification is... you no longer have any excuse to fall-back on your ignorance of the topic/discussion. You are now in flat-out avoidance, bordering on the obtuse. I note your selective quote extract purposely avoided this same summary, as follows... that you would do so, while posturing and having the unmitigated gall to question... to continue to ask... for an anthropogenic source/tie, is perhaps one of the more revealing examples of your overall displayed lack of reading/comprehension abilities. Again, in quoting back you selectively avoid this paragraph: 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted July 22, 2013 Report Share Posted July 22, 2013 no - study authors wrote the article... which in no way counters the study. The article links to the study... the article is intended for more of a layman audience/understanding. Clearly, you most certainly don't have the displayed chops to presume to address actual studies. You're simply playing 'silly buggar' over this. But that's all you've got... I guess that's why you continue to go with your strengths! 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! "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!!!! the first study which does speak to the anthropogenic linkage (re: Arctic amplification). 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 Arctic amplification (AA) – the observed enhanced warming in high northern latitudes relative to the northern hemisphere 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.