Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem

TimG · July 16, 2014

2011 lasted until August. You are twisting facts to suit your desired narrative.

WTF? The 2011 flood was predicted well in advance because officials could see the larger than normal snowpack. There was additional precipitation in the spring but ALL floods are created because of too much precipitation in the spring on top of a large snowpack so there was nothing unusual about that. The 2014 flood was unexpected and driven only by late spring rains but a sample size of 1 is NOT enough to make claims about trends.

The historical record shows multiple large floods occurring within a few years so multiple large floods occurring together is not as rare as you would like to claim. This could be because weather shows a high degree of 'auto-correlation' (i.e. if it was hot today chances are it will be hot tomorrow). It could also be because the chances of it occurring are much higher than you would like to believe.

Edited July 16, 2014 by TimG

BubberMiley · July 16, 2014

Sounds like you missed my previous post so here it is again....

If I were Waldo, I would be inclined to point out that you're assuming nothing has changed in the Alberta watershed since those 1879, 1897, and 1932 floods. Point in fact: Alberta has been subject to extensive watershed management practices that make the Alberta Elbow and Bow River flows nothing like what they were in the past (i.e., initial builds and/or upgrades to the Horseshoe Dam, the Kananaskis Plant Dam, the Lake Minnewanka Reservoir, Ghost Dam, Spray Lakes/River reservoir, Bearspaw Dam, Cascade River Dam, Glenmore Dam, Glenmore Reservoir, etc.). The point being, of course, you can't presume to compare floods across that time span given the many, many watershed changes introduced.

Keepitsimple · July 16, 2014

If I were Waldo, I would be inclined to point out that you're assuming nothing has changed in the Alberta watershed since those 1879, 1897, and 1932 floods. Point in fact: Alberta has been subject to extensive watershed management practices that make the Alberta Elbow and Bow River flows nothing like what they were in the past (i.e., initial builds and/or upgrades to the Horseshoe Dam, the Kananaskis Plant Dam, the Lake Minnewanka Reservoir, Ghost Dam, Spray Lakes/River reservoir, Bearspaw Dam, Cascade River Dam, Glenmore Dam, Glenmore Reservoir, etc.). The point being, of course, you can't presume to compare floods across that time span given the many, many watershed changes introduced.

But you're not - Thank God there's only one of him. <_< There's another significant change over the years.....there are many, many more houses and developments that have sprung up close to the river......so the damages are and human impact are that much greater. My only point is that these floods are not a one-in-300-year occurrence - they've happened quite a few times before........

Edited July 16, 2014 by Keepitsimple

BubberMiley · July 16, 2014

My only point is that these floods are not a one-in-300-year occurrence - they've happened quite a few times before........

Of course there were floods before, but it must give even the most ardent denier pause to have within four years two unprecedented floods that reach a level they once called "one in 300 years" (but probably won't anymore). Such events obviously are caused by a great number of factors, but the chief one is excessive precipitation in areas that were once considered unbearably dry.

TimG · July 16, 2014

Of course there were floods before, but it must give even the most ardent denier pause to have within four years two unprecedented floods that reach a level they once called "one in 300 years" (but probably won't anymore).

The invention of science means humans no longer have to blame random events on demons or gods. "deniers" as you call them are merely people that expect the scientific process to be followed when making claims about the causes of random weather events. "deniers" is an odd term to describe people who refuse to jump to ideologically motivated conclusions based on limited to non-existent data.

waldo · July 17, 2014

But you're not - Thank God there's only one of him.

is that a personal insult directed at me, Simple?

.

My only point is that these floods are not a one-in-300-year occurrence - they've happened quite a few times before........

in spite of the astute Bubber chaneling the waldo, with this comment you've completely ignored his post. Those1800's Alberta floods you highlighted have no bearing; given the extensive changes in the Alberta watershed, no such comparable conclusion, as yours, can be drawn. Notwithstanding those extensive changes to the watershed, technology was somewhat questionable during that period to presume that measurements were sound. In researching some of the history of Manitoba floods I came across an interesting study that was initiated by Manitoba Conservation and Manitoba Hydro - a study to attempt to reconcile late 1800 measurements showing flood rates that made no sense in terms of today's situation/monitoring. The study was extensive and looked at a multitude of possible avenues to attempt to validate those late 1800 flow-rate measurements... the only conclusion that could be drawn was that those late 1800's measurements were incorrect; i.e., flawed. The point being, you chose to simply draw upon a couple of references to, similarly, late 1800's Alberta floods... you gave no consideration to watershed changes and you simply choose to outright accept the integrity of those measurements made at a time when questionable technology/techniques existed to assess flow-rates.

.

Keepitsimple · July 18, 2014

is that a personal insult directed at me, Simple?

Not really.....more of an expression of relief. <_<

waldo · July 18, 2014

Not really.....more of an expression of relief.

is that a personal insult directed at me, Simple?

waldo · July 18, 2014

The invention of science means humans no longer have to blame random events on demons or gods. "deniers" as you call them are merely people that expect the scientific process to be followed when making claims about the causes of random weather events. "deniers" is an odd term to describe people who refuse to jump to ideologically motivated conclusions based on limited to non-existent data.

in this particular discussion, 3 floods have been highlighted (last years and this years earlier Alberta floods and the ongoing Sask/Man flood watch). As I wrote in an earlier post, "in speaking to last years Alberta floods, this years earlier Alberta floods and the ongoing Sask/Man floods, John Pomeroy - Canada research chair in water resources and climate change: "all three unusual floods were caused by moisture-laden storm fronts that moved up from the U.S. and then stalled. The increase in stalled summer storms “that just sit there” appears to be tied to a shift in the jet stream and atmospheric flows".

the scientific method/process you're questioning, without foundation, is one behind the prolific research over the most recent years... scientists working to find, or eliminate, causal ties to some extreme weather events... most particularly, those in association with jet-stream shifts and "stalled" weather systems.

-1=e^ipi · July 18, 2014

scientists working to find, or eliminate, causal ties to some extreme weather events... most particularly, those in association with jet-stream shifts and "stalled" weather systems.

Yes, the subject that you want to discuss so badly that you dismiss my 7800 word post in the thread on jet-streams. *sarcasm*

waldo · July 18, 2014

Yes, the subject that you want to discuss so badly that you dismiss my 7800 word post in the thread on jet-streams. *sarcasm*

ya, ya... after you repeatedly threw out your 'where's waldo' plaintive wails, after you actually created your own thread on the subject (re-copying your entire manifesto) and whined about no one responding to you, I raised my ignore and actually responded to your last plead for the waldo to offer comment... in that regard, I provided you a summary accounting of what I interpreted as your single distinction; i.e., that you agree with everything except the duration period. I believe you gave me a nothing reply in that regard. I also threw you an outstanding question/challenge, now multiple times; one that you somehow can't be bothered to address - go figure. Let me throw it out again: what do you attribute the so-called "stalling" of the respective extreme event weather systems to... I'm sure, as you are aware, there were 3 in particular that were highlighted in the original discussion (related to heat waves)? As you've quoted above, I also offer the related 'stalling' comment from the Canada research chair in water resources and climate change in regards the 3 referenced Canadian Prairie floods...

-1=e^ipi · July 18, 2014

ya, ya... after you repeatedly threw out your 'where's waldo' plaintive wails, after you actually created your own thread on the subject (re-copying your entire manifesto) and whined about no one responding to you, I raised my ignore and actually responded to your last plead for the waldo to offer comment... in that regard, I provided you a summary accounting of what I interpreted as your single distinction; i.e., that you agree with everything except the duration period. I believe you gave me a nothing reply in that regard. I also threw you an outstanding question/challenge, now multiple times; one that you somehow can't be bothered to address - go figure. Let me throw it out again: what do you attribute the so-called "stalling" of the respective extreme event weather systems to... I'm sure, as you are aware, there were 3 in particular that were highlighted in the original discussion (related to heat waves)? As you've quoted above, I also offer the related 'stalling' comment from the Canada research chair in water resources and climate change in regards the 3 referenced Canadian Prairie floods...

Same BS over and over again, as expected. Dismiss large posts as 'manifestos' (even if it doesn't fit the definition, you don't seem to care about the meaning of words), respond in incoherent nonsense, make absurd claims & strawman me (How am I disagreeing with the duration?), etc. Originally, I was hoping to at least agree upon the physical mechanism of changes regarding the northern polar jetstream and agree upon the order of magnitude of expected change; but you are simply too science illiterate for that.

With respect to your question... floods happen. You point to 3 observed floods in the past... okay, what are you trying to say about these floods?

waldo · July 18, 2014

Same BS over and over again, as expected. Dismiss large posts as 'manifestos' (even if it doesn't fit the definition, you don't seem to care about the meaning of words), respond in incoherent nonsense, make absurd claims & strawman me (How am I disagreeing with the duration?), etc. Originally, I was hoping to at least agree upon the physical mechanism of changes regarding the northern polar jetstream and agree upon the order of magnitude of expected change; but you are simply too science illiterate for that.

I won't waste any more time with your continued nonsense... please, at your leisure, revisit the last related post where I specifically speak to the duration aspect. Don't bother to reply as I'll just ignore you... well... I might wait for a repeat of your numerous plaintive wails for me to respond... and may respond if the wails are worthy!

-1=e^ipi · July 18, 2014

I won't waste any more time with your continued nonsense... please, at your leisure, revisit the last related post where I specifically speak to the duration aspect. Don't bother to reply as I'll just ignore you... well... I might wait for a repeat of your numerous plaintive wails for me to respond... and may respond if the wails are worthy!

Oh good. Can you not post in any future threads I make? I'm planning to make one on the deglaciation of Antarctica soon and I would prefer that you do not derail it.

Edited July 18, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

waldo · July 18, 2014

Oh good. Can you not post in any future threads I make? I'm planning to make one on the deglaciation of Antarctica soon and I would prefer that you do not derail it.

oh that's a winner! Given some of the recent MLW rabble over increased Antarctic land/sea ice I thought to do the same. I'm here to support you all the way!

waldo · August 23, 2014

speaking of Antarctic deglaciation...

record decline of Greenland & Antarctic ice-sheets: --- Researchers have for the first time extensively mapped Greenland's and Antarctica's ice sheets with the help of the ESA satellite CryoSat-2 and have thus been able to prove that the ice crusts of both regions momentarily decline at an unprecedented rate. In total the ice sheets are losing around 500 cubic kilometers of ice per year.

published study: the annual loss of ice has doubled in the case of Greenland and tripled in the West Antarctic compared to 2009 figures.

Germany's Alfred Wegener Institute team does not actually calculate a sea-level rise equivalent number, but if this volume is considered to be all ice (a small part will be snow) then the contribution is likely to be on the order of just over a millimetre per year.

Keepitsimple · September 3, 2014

Canada's own Ross McKitrick continues to be an inconvenient truth for the Alarmist community. His latest paper quantifies the "pause" in Global Warming. Here's an article from that "denier" <_< journalist, Lorne Gunter:

According to Canadian Ross McKitrick, a professor of environmental economics who wrote the paper for the Open Journal of Statistics, "I make the duration out to be 19 years at the surface and 16 to 26 years in the lower troposphere depending on the data set used."

In still plainer English, McKitrick has crunched the numbers from all the major weather organizations in the world and has found that there has been no overall warming at the Earth's surface since 1995 - that's 19 years in all.

During the past two decades, there have been hotter years and colder years, but on the whole the world's temperatures have not been rising. Despite a 13 per cent rise in carbon dioxide levels over the period, the average global temperature is the same today as it was almost 20 years ago.

In the lower atmosphere, there has been no warming for somewhere between 16 and 26 years, depending on which weather organization's records are used.

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/2014/09/03/a-current-pause-in-global-warming-mckitrick

The Paper: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=49307

Edited September 3, 2014 by Keepitsimple

On Guard for Thee · September 3, 2014

WTF? The 2011 flood was predicted well in advance because officials could see the larger than normal snowpack. There was additional precipitation in the spring but ALL floods are created because of too much precipitation in the spring on top of a large snowpack so there was nothing unusual about that. The 2014 flood was unexpected and driven only by late spring rains but a sample size of 1 is NOT enough to make claims about trends.

The historical record shows multiple large floods occurring within a few years so multiple large floods occurring together is not as rare as you would like to claim. This could be because weather shows a high degree of 'auto-correlation' (i.e. if it was hot today chances are it will be hot tomorrow). It could also be because the chances of it occurring are much higher than you would like to believe.

I like this "auto correlation" thingy. Mind you as a kid I loved Peter Pan too.

Mighty AC · September 4, 2014

Canada's own Ross McKitrick continues to be an inconvenient truth for the Alarmist community. His latest paper quantifies the "pause" in Global Warming. Here's an article from that "denier" journalist, Lorne Gunter:

I know you're aware that the earth has continued to accumulate heat. So why do you feel it's acceptable to ignore ocean heat content? Natural, cyclic ups and downs can temper atmospheric temperatures but possibly not for much longer. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26122-no-more-pause-warming-will-be-nonstop-from-now-on.html#.VAhoH8KapJA

bush_cheney2004 · September 4, 2014

....Natural, cyclic ups and downs can temper atmospheric temperatures but possibly not for much longer.

No doubt the long advertised climate change doom will be upon us....any day now....just wait....you'll see.

jbg · September 4, 2014

No doubt the long advertised climate change doom will be upon us....any day now....just wait....you'll see.

I can confidently predict the weather will be different a few months from now. Far more confidence in predicting change 3 months out from now than 3 months out from early June.

bush_cheney2004 · September 4, 2014

I have mothballed my snow thrower indefinitely, so confident I am in the alarmist's prediction of a scorching hot earth.

I will also save money on salt !

On Guard for Thee · September 4, 2014

I have mothballed my snow thrower indefinitely, so confident I am in the alarmist's prediction of a scorching hot earth.

I will also save money on salt !

It must be hard to actually save money on salt if you continiously pound it.

Wilber · September 4, 2014

Canada's own Ross McKitrick continues to be an inconvenient truth for the Alarmist community. His latest paper quantifies the "pause" in Global Warming. Here's an article from that "denier" journalist, Lorne Gunter: Link: http://www.torontosun.com/2014/09/03/a-current-pause-in-global-warming-mckitrickThe Paper: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=49307

The rate of sea level rise over the past 20 years has been double that of the previous 80. Did he explain where all the water is coming from?

Keepitsimple · September 4, 2014

I know you're aware that the earth has continued to accumulate heat. So why do you feel it's acceptable to ignore ocean heat content? Natural, cyclic ups and downs can temper atmospheric temperatures but possibly not for much longer. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26122-no-more-pause-warming-will-be-nonstop-from-now-on.html#.VAhoH8KapJA

Oh come on - take the scientific approach and be at least a little bit of a skeptic! First it was land temperatures - but the Climate Scientists have been scratching their heads with the current extended warming "hiatus". Then it was Ocean heat. The only reasonably reliable measurement for ocean heat comes from the Argo floats that measure down to 700 meters. Unadjusted Argo data from 2003 - 2012 show a slight cooling - GISS "adjusted" measurements show a slight warming - nowhere even close to the predicted warming that would support the theory of the missing heat being in the oceans. Fact is, with the Argo data, we're only now beginning to understand ocean salinity and heat. Think about it - if the "missing" heat is not in the ocean, where might it be?

Edited September 4, 2014 by Keepitsimple