Climate Change Causing Extreme Weather

[Media_Truth]

At current temperatures, the atmosphere can hold 7% more water. This can lesd to floods of areas that otherwise wouldn‘t be flooded. More intense hurricanes, etc.

 

[ttwtt78640]

At current temperatures, the atmosphere can hold 7% more water. This can lesd to floods of areas that otherwise wouldn‘t be flooded. More intense hurricanes, etc.

Hmm... wouldn't having more water in the air also lower sea levels?

 

[Lord of Planar]

At current temperatures, the atmosphere can hold 7% more water. This can lesd to floods of areas that otherwise wouldn‘t be flooded. More intense hurricanes, etc.

If you say so.

 

[Jack Hays]

At current temperatures, the atmosphere can hold 7% more water. This can lesd to floods of areas that otherwise wouldn‘t be flooded. More intense hurricanes, etc.

And yet it hasn't.

Figure: Global Hurricane Frequency (all & major) -- 12-month running sums. The top time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached at least hurricane-force (maximum lifetime wind speed exceeds 64-knots). The bottom time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached major hurricane strength (96-knots+). Adapted from Maue (2011) GRL.

 

[Jack Hays]

Anyone else remember the 1962 Columbus Day Storm?

There hasn't been one yet here in Oregon to top that one.

In 1974 I was in graduate school at the University of Illinois. In April there was a tornado watch or warning every day of the month.

 

[Lord of Planar]

In 1974 I was in graduate school at the University of Illinois. In April there was a tornado watch or warning every day of the month.

LOL...

During the height of the global cooling scare...

 

[Buzz]

Media has always been driven to sell more with sensationalism. That's why it is not to be believed. I find it so ignorant that the warmers will use media outlets, known to sensationalize, as fact.

Then... two hours later LOP says this:

LOL...

During the height of the global cooling scare...

Funny thing is... the 'global cooling scare' was based mostly on a few media articles that were sensationalizing the cooling of that period to sell more magazines.

:lamo

 

[Jack Hays]

Funny thing is... the 'global cooling scare' was based mostly on a few media articles that were sensationalizing the cooling of that period to sell more magazines.

:lamo

That's the cover-up damage control claim now.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Then... two hours later LOP says this:



Funny thing is... the 'global cooling scare' was based mostly on a few media articles that were sensationalizing the cooling of that period to sell more magazines.

:lamo

Yes, but there was a "pause" in the warming then.

 

[Media_Truth]

And yet it hasn't.

Figure: Global Hurricane Frequency (all & major) -- 12-month running sums. The top time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached at least hurricane-force (maximum lifetime wind speed exceeds 64-knots). The bottom time series is the number of global tropical cyclones that reached major hurricane strength (96-knots+). Adapted from Maue (2011) GRL.

A couple points here. It makes sense that a 7% increase in moisture is not going to effect the numbers of hurricanes drastically. Hurricanes occur mostly when ocean waters are warmer, usually in the late Summer/early Fall. With oceans being warmer and the air holding more water, hurricanes can be more intense. As Climate Change persists, and warming is greater, we will likely see a more noticeable increase in the numbers and intensity of hurricanes. You have chosen to focus solely on hurricanes, and not floods. Already, the world is seeing more flooding.

2.3 billion people affected by flooding disasters in 20 years – Channel 4 News

According to the UN report, the number of floods per year has gone up during this period, with the death toll also rising in many parts of the world.

It says: “Floods strike in Asia and Africa more than other continents, but pose an increasing danger elsewhere.

“In South America, for example, 560,000 people were affected by floods on average each year between 1995 and 2004. By the following decade (2005-2014) that number had risen to 2.2 million people, nearly a four-fold increase.”

Flooding has accounted for nearly half of all weather related disasters worldwide since 1995, and has killed an estimated 157,000 people and some 2.3bn others.

And this is despite the fact that the world is in the early stages of the effects of climate change.

 

[Buzz]

That's the cover-up damage control claim now.

Actually... I gave the exact same response to this BS back in 2005 when I first heard it. Even the Newsweek article that you denialists will typically cite to back up this BS isn't as bad as you all make it out to be.

 

[Buzz]

Yes, but there was a "pause" in the warming then.

Yes... but was the majority of scientists warning us all of the coming cool down or was it just mostly media sensationalism? I would say sensationalism.

 

[Jack Hays]

A couple points here. It makes sense that a 7% increase in moisture is not going to effect the numbers of hurricanes drastically. Hurricanes occur mostly when ocean waters are warmer, usually in the late Summer/early Fall. With oceans being warmer and the air holding more water, hurricanes can be more intense. As Climate Change persists, and warming is greater, we will likely see a more noticeable increase in the numbers and intensity of hurricanes. You have chosen to focus solely on hurricanes, and not floods. Already, the world is seeing more flooding.

2.3 billion people affected by flooding disasters in 20 years – Channel 4 News

According to the UN report, the number of floods per year has gone up during this period, with the death toll also rising in many parts of the world.

It says: “Floods strike in Asia and Africa more than other continents, but pose an increasing danger elsewhere.

“In South America, for example, 560,000 people were affected by floods on average each year between 1995 and 2004. By the following decade (2005-2014) that number had risen to 2.2 million people, nearly a four-fold increase.”

Flooding has accounted for nearly half of all weather related disasters worldwide since 1995, and has killed an estimated 157,000 people and some 2.3bn others.

And this is despite the fact that the world is in the early stages of the effects of climate change.

You're the one who brought up hurricanes.

 

[Jack Hays]

You have chosen to focus solely on hurricanes, and not floods. Already, the world is seeing more flooding.

No it's not.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Flooding Not Increasing In North America And Europe, New Study Confirms[/h][FONT=&quot]G.A. Hodgkins et al., Journal of Hydrology, September 2017 “The results of this study, for North America and Europe, provide a firmer foundation and support the conclusion of the IPCC that compelling evidence for increased flooding at a global scale is lacking.” Fig. 2. Monthly distribution of floods with ≥25 year return periods for 1204…
[/FONT]
August 31, 2017 in flooding.

 

[Jack Hays]

Actually... I gave the exact same response to this BS back in 2005 when I first heard it. Even the Newsweek article that you denialists will typically cite to back up this BS isn't as bad as you all make it out to be.

[h=2]Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-’80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific ‘Consensus’[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 13. September 2016
Beginning in 2003, software engineer William Connolley quietly removed the highly inconvenient references to the global cooling scare of the 1970s from Wikipedia, the world’s most influential and accessed informational source. It had to be done. Too many skeptics were (correctly) pointing out that the scientific “consensus” during the 1960s and 1970s was that the […]

Posted in Climate Politics, Cooling/Temperature, Hockey Team, Media / Bias | 152 Responses

[h=2]285 Papers 70s Cooling 2[/h]PART 2 PART 1 HERE PART 3 HERE —– 96. Paterson, 1977 Figure 4a shows 10-yr mean [temperature] values from AD 1200 to present [Arctic Canada]. Prominent features are brief warm periods with peaks at 1240 and 1380, cold peaks at 1430, 1520, and 1560, the ‘Little Ice Age’ continuously cold from 1680 to 1730 […]


[h=2]285 Papers 70s Cooling 1[/h]Beginning in 2003, software engineer William Connolley quietly removed the highly inconvenient references to the global cooling scare of the 1970s from Wikipedia, the world’s most influential and accessed informational source. It had to be done. Too many skeptics were (correctly) pointing out that the scientific “consensus” during the 1960s and 1970s was that the […]

 

[longview]

Then... two hours later LOP says this:



Funny thing is... the 'global cooling scare' was based mostly on a few media articles that were sensationalizing the cooling of that period to sell more magazines.

:lamo

That is a myth alarmist tell themselves, there was a real report
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
UNITED STATES COMMITTEE FOR THE
GLOBAL ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH PROGRAM
National Research Council
UNDERSTANDING CLIMATIC CHANGE
A Program for Action

Full text of "Understanding climatic change"

It is not primarily the advance of a major ice
sheet over our farms and cities that we must fear, devastating as this
would be, for such changes take thousands of years to evolve. Rather,
it is persistent changes of the temperature and rainfall in areas com-
mitted to agricultural use, changes in the frost content of Canadian and
Siberian soils, and changes of ocean temperature in areas of high nutri-
ent production, for example, that are of more immediate concern.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yes... but was the majority of scientists warning us all of the coming cool down or was it just mostly media sensationalism? I would say sensationalism.

There wasn't a push for concern with billions and billions dollars worth of climate agenda money driving one sided research back then, like now.

 

[Media_Truth]

No it's not.

[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/31/flooding-not-increasing-in-north-america-and-europe-new-study-confirms/"]

[/URL][/FONT]
[h=1]Flooding Not Increasing In North America And Europe, New Study Confirms[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]G.A. Hodgkins et al., Journal of Hydrology, September 2017 “The results of this study, for North America and Europe, provide a firmer foundation and support the conclusion of the IPCC that compelling evidence for increased flooding at a global scale is lacking.” Fig. 2. Monthly distribution of floods with ≥25 year return periods for 1204…[/FONT]
[/FONT][/COLOR]
[URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/31/flooding-not-increasing-in-north-america-and-europe-new-study-confirms/"]August 31, 2017[/URL] in flooding.

1. The title of the referenced article was again dishonestly changed by the High Schooler Watts.
2. The article is outdated from 2017.
3. The article is cherry-picking worldwide data, by not looking at the entire world.

So typical of Jack Hays rebuttal, citing the High Schooler Watts.

 

[Media_Truth]

That is a myth alarmist tell themselves, there was a real report
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
UNITED STATES COMMITTEE FOR THE
GLOBAL ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH PROGRAM
National Research Council
UNDERSTANDING CLIMATIC CHANGE
A Program for Action

Full text of "Understanding climatic change"

"It is not primarily the advance of a major ice
sheet over our farms and cities that we must fear, devastating as this
would be, for such changes take thousands of years to evolve. Rather,
it is persistent changes of the temperature and rainfall in areas com-
mitted to agricultural use, changes in the frost content of Canadian and
Siberian soils, and changes of ocean temperature in areas of high nutri-
ent production, for example, that are of more immediate concern."

I don't see how this disproves anything that BUZZ has said. If anything, it shows that there is much to be concerned about with Climate Change.

 

[Northern Light]

 

[Jack Hays]

1. The title of the referenced article was again dishonestly changed by the High Schooler Watts.
2. The article is outdated from 2017.
3. The article is cherry-picking worldwide data, by not looking at the entire world.

So typical of Jack Hays rebuttal, citing the High Schooler Watts.

I'm afraid you're again contradicted by the data.

In their own words:

[h=4]G.A. Hodgkins et al., Climate-driven variability in the occurrence of major floods across North America and Europe, Journal of Hydrology, Volume 552, September 2017, Pages 704-717[/h][h=4][/h][h=4]Abstract[/h][FONT=&quot]Concern over the potential impact of anthropogenic climate change on flooding has led to a proliferation of studies examining past flood trends. Many studies have analysed annual-maximum flow trends but few have quantified changes in major (25–100 year return period) floods, i.e. those that have the greatest societal impacts. Existing major-flood studies used a limited number of very large catchments affected to varying degrees by alterations such as reservoirs and urbanisation. In the current study, trends in major-flood occurrence from 1961 to 2010 and from 1931 to 2010 were assessed using a very large dataset (>1200 gauges) of diverse catchments from North America and Europe; only minimally altered catchments were used, to focus on climate-driven changes rather than changes due to catchment alterations. Trend testing of major floods was based on counting the number of exceedances of a given flood threshold within a group of gauges. Evidence for significant trends varied between groups of gauges that were defined by catchment size, location, climate, flood threshold and period of record, indicating that generalizations about flood trends across large domains or a diversity of catchment types are ungrounded. Overall, the number of significant trends in major-flood occurrence across North America and Europe was approximately the number expected due to chance alone. Changes over time in the occurrence of major floods were dominated by multidecadal variability rather than by long-term trends. There were more than three times as many significant relationships between major-flood occurrence and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation than significant long-term trends. […][/FONT]

 

[Media_Truth]

I'm afraid you're again contradicted by the data.

In their own words:

[h=4]G.A. Hodgkins et al., Climate-driven variability in the occurrence of major floods across North America and Europe, Journal of Hydrology, Volume 552, September 2017, Pages 704-717[/h][h=4][/h][h=4]Abstract[/h][FONT="]Concern over the potential impact of anthropogenic climate change on flooding has led to a proliferation of studies examining past flood trends. Many studies have analysed annual-maximum flow trends but few have quantified changes in major (25–100 year return period) floods, i.e. those that have the greatest societal impacts. Existing major-flood studies used a limited number of very large catchments affected to varying degrees by alterations such as reservoirs and urbanisation. In the current study, trends in major-flood occurrence from 1961 to 2010 and from 1931 to 2010 were assessed using a very large dataset (>1200 gauges) of diverse catchments from North America and Europe; only minimally altered catchments were used, to focus on climate-driven changes rather than changes due to catchment alterations. Trend testing of major floods was based on counting the number of exceedances of a given flood threshold within a group of gauges. Evidence for significant trends varied between groups of gauges that were defined by catchment size, location, climate, flood threshold and period of record, indicating that generalizations about flood trends across large domains or a diversity of catchment types are ungrounded. Overall, the number of significant trends in major-flood occurrence across North America and Europe was approximately the number expected due to chance alone. Changes over time in the occurrence of major floods were dominated by multidecadal variability rather than by long-term trends. There were more than three times as many significant relationships between major-flood occurrence and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation than significant long-term trends. […][/FONT]

Thanks for proving my point ---

Watt's title --- Flooding Not Increasing In North America And Europe, New Study Confirms
Real title --- Climate-driven variability in the occurrence of major floods across North America and Europe

You can't trust somebody who resorts to such dishonesty. Undoubtedly he takes things out of context, cherry picks, and other unethical practices.

 

[GDViking]

Weather is not climate.

True, and weather does not affect climate, however.climate sure as **** does affect weather...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Thanks for proving my point ---

Watt's title --- Flooding Not Increasing In North America And Europe, New Study Confirms
Real title --- Climate-driven variability in the occurrence of major floods across North America and Europe

You can't trust somebody who resorts to such dishonesty. Undoubtedly he takes things out of context, cherry picks, and other unethical practices.

You are embarrassing to read since the Title of article of the BLOG was never ascribed to the paper, in fact if you bothered to click on the link, you would have seen this:

G.A. Hodgkins et al., Climate-driven variability in the occurrence of major floods across North America and Europe, Journal of Hydrology, Volume 552, September 2017, Pages 704-717

Abstract
Concern over the potential impact of anthropogenic climate change on flooding has led to a proliferation of studies examining past flood trends. Many studies have analysed annual-maximum flow trends but few have quantified changes in major (25–100 year return period) floods, i.e. those that have the greatest societal impacts. Existing major-flood studies used a limited number of very large catchments affected to varying degrees by alterations such as reservoirs and urbanisation. In the current study, trends in major-flood occurrence from 1961 to 2010 and from 1931 to 2010 were assessed using a very large dataset (>1200 gauges) of diverse catchments from North America and Europe; only minimally altered catchments were used, to focus on climate-driven changes rather than changes due to catchment alterations. Trend testing of major floods was based on counting the number of exceedances of a given flood threshold within a group of gauges. Evidence for significant trends varied between groups of gauges that were defined by catchment size, location, climate, flood threshold and period of record, indicating that generalizations about flood trends across large domains or a diversity of catchment types are ungrounded. Overall, the number of significant trends in major-flood occurrence across North America and Europe was approximately the number expected due to chance alone. Changes over time in the occurrence of major floods were dominated by multidecadal variability rather than by long-term trends. There were more than three times as many significant relationships between major-flood occurrence and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation than significant long-term trends. […]

=====================================================================

To drive home on how poor a reader YOU are, here is the BLOGS title again, read carefully this time:

Flooding Not Increasing In North America And Europe, New Study Confirms

bolding mine

Obviously NOT the title of a science paper.

Snicker...……………...

YOU are the dishonest one here....

 

[NWRatCon]

Look here buddy, every time climate skeptics use cold weather to prove global warming is false, you Lefties use the "weather isnt climate defence".
But then when suddenly an extreme weather event happens, you dont hesitate to point to that as proof of climate change.

You can't have it both ways, sorry

The complete vacuity of that statement is astounding. It is breathtaking to encapsulate so much ignorance in a single post.