Headlines in Climate Science

[marywollstonecraft]

The trouble is, you can always find regions that are setting records to push that narrative even when the global aggregate (ie. climate) is not spectacular. This summer has also been the coldest on record in the Arctic circle.

Extreme weather events are always the norm when you know where to look each year.

really? so you think 32C is cold in the arctic circle?


Siberia breaks records for Arctic heat ? ?I?ve never worn a bikini before in Norilsk? | Environment

 

[marywollstonecraft]

I am. You posted an article reporting that "extreme weather is now the norm", I pointed out that you can ALWAYS find extreme weather around the globe at any moment. It's the nature of a global climate system. Some places will be extreme, others won't be. There is never a time where everywhere in the globe was experiencing average weather. Your response to this statement was to post a bunch of local flood stories that did nothing to actually counter my point. My point was that what you showed is what can be done at any time.

As I pointed out then, if you want to find some trend in increasingly extreme weather derived from a global event (in this case global warming) you have to show that he occurrence of those extreme events is actually increasing. The data shows that floods, drought and so on are NOT actually increasing over time and have remained fairly steady.

As I have also shown, even when LOCAL events are studied it turns out that the event -- flooding in this case -- was the product of changes in local land use, not global warming (or even LOCAL warming).

So all you are doing is making unfounded arguments that you have tried to back up with news reports. That isn't science, that is alarmism.

you have NOT shown this at all. nobody is disputing that changes in land use influence floodwaters - but in many cases of record floods, this has played only a minor role - if any.

It is well known that climate change will have differing effects on different areas, so the aggregate of all floods globally is less relevant than changes over time in particular regions.

you ignore or carefully choose facts to present an argument contrary to that of the many scientists who study earth systems.

 

[Lord of Planar]

really? so you think 32C is cold in the arctic circle?


Siberia breaks records for Arctic heat ? ?I?ve never worn a bikini before in Norilsk? | Environment

LOL...

Only 0.1 C greater than 30 years ago.

You have to remember, if they get less snow to melt, things get warm fast with 18 hours of sunlight a day.

 

[jmotivator]

really? so you think 32C is cold in the arctic circle?


Siberia breaks records for Arctic heat ? ?I?ve never worn a bikini before in Norilsk? | Environment

Sigh. Again you try to ignore the facts by presenting some smaller anecdote. FYI: The Arctic is bigger than just Siberia.

The arctic circle has had the coldest summer on record, and the Arctic summer has ended earlier than it has on record (let me know if you can't decipher that any better than you can an IPCC graph). Sea ice extent has grown 30% since last year, and is currently on track to be at or above the average.

So what do you suppose the alarmists will flock to next now that the polar bear alarm has been proven to be bad science (and it is kind to even call it science), and the Arctic sea ice stubbornly refuses to vanish on queue?

More importantly, at what point do you give up defending this collapsing theory?

 

[jmotivator]

you have NOT shown this at all. nobody is disputing that changes in land use influence floodwaters - but in many cases of record floods, this has played only a minor role - if any.

Read what I said again and get back to me. And actually read all those linked articles while you are at it. Let me know when one shows a definitive link between GLOBAL WARMING and the particular flood they are reporting on. (Hint: they can't.)

It is well known that climate change will have differing effects on different areas, so the aggregate of all floods globally is less relevant than changes over time in particular regions.

You don't seem to understand how global climate works...

you ignore or carefully choose facts to present an argument contrary to that of the many scientists who study earth systems.

HAHA!! Dude, you are the one hunting for newspaper articles about floods to show that global warming causes more floods.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Actually, all four working groups have a "for policy makers" section.

Welcome to the new world order.

Yes, and that's the more important one because it shows how "policy makers" are going to act to resolve a problem,regardless of how big a problem anything might be... But it's always fake doom and gloom.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yes, and that's the more important one because it shows how "policy makers" are going to act to resolve a problem,regardless of how big a problem anything might be... But it's always fake doom and gloom.

They don't expect policy Makers to understand any of the contents. They simply give guidance for an agenda, hoping policy makers think the IPCC is right.

It amazes me how dominating the IPCC is. Almost any thing I look for anymore is referencing the AR4 material as if it is fact.

They are the Exxon of climate science.

 

[BmanMcfly]

They don't expect policy Makers to understand any of the contents. They simply give guidance for an agenda, hoping policy makers think the IPCC is right.

It amazes me how dominating the IPCC is. Almost any thing I look for anymore is referencing the AR4 material as if it is fact.

they are the Exxon of climate science.

The same people that believe they must pass a law before they read the law??

 

[Lord of Planar]

The same people that believe they must pass a law before they read the law??

LOL...

Excellent example.

An added thought. Since the IPCC material is not all peer/pal reviewed, how does any peer reviewed material make publication when they reference the IPCC AR4 rather than the papers the IPCC uses?

Seems like a violation of the peer review process to me...

 

[marywollstonecraft]

LOL...

Only 0.1 C greater than 30 years ago.

You have to remember, if they get less snow to melt, things get warm fast with 18 hours of sunlight a day.

hmmmm ... so Jmotivator says its the coldest summer on record in the arctic - I post something that says temps are way above average ....

24 July 2013 (The Siberian Times) – Norilsk has hit 32C in recent days with some forecasts predicting a blistering 35C by the weekend as the Arctic competes with the Mediterranean. The tundra turned hot as the Kransnoyarsk region industrial city – where foreigners are restricted from visiting – smashed records for heat established in 1979.

The average temperature in July is 13.6 but the mercury was touching 32C, a long way from the coldest-ever recorded temperature of minus 61C.

The previous hottest was 31.9C, more than three decades ago.

‘I’ve never worn a bikini before in Norilsk, just to top up my tan’, said Polina, 21, a student.

The hot spell is likely to last at least until 26 July, say forecasters.

Norilsk – above the Arctic Circle – is known as one of the world’s coldest cites, and is built on permafrost. Frosty weather is a reality for 280 days a year. In summer time, average air temperatures are 14.6 degrees, before this year when Norilsk finds itself in the furnace.

and you say ... but that is normal.

I wasn't saying anything about climate change - just pointing out that Jmotivator was wrong ... and you need to jump in there and make out that this weather is normal .....

well ... it isn't.

I don't know whether it has anything to do with climate change - but I what I do know is that

this is not, as Jmotivator claims, the coldest summer on record in the arctic circle ....

nor is 32C "normal" as you seem to want to claim.

 

[marywollstonecraft]

Actually, all four working groups have a "for policy makers" section.

Welcome to the new world order.

have you ever been involved in policy development?


my guess is .... no.

Policy makers don't pull policies out of their arses based on what they think they would like ... they have to have a more substantial basis than that for making policy decisions.

 

[Lord of Planar]

hmmmm ... so Jmotivator says its the coldest summer on record in the arctic - I post something that says temps are way above average ....

Yes, but one location is not indicative of the entire arctic circle.

and you say ... but that is normal.

That's not what I said. I pointed out what your linked article said. That it was only 0.1C higher than more than 30 years ago.

I wasn't saying anything about climate change - just pointing out that Jmotivator was wrong ... and you need to jump in there and make out that this weather is normal .....

With a single location?

nor is 32C "normal" as you seem to want to claim.

I never implied it was normal. I most definitely never said it was normal.

 

[Lord of Planar]

have you ever been involved in policy development?


my guess is .... no.

Policy makers don't pull policies out of their arses based on what they think they would like ... they have to have a more substantial basis than that for making policy decisions.

Yes, but the information they use isn't always correct information.

 

[marywollstonecraft]

Sigh. Again you try to ignore the facts by presenting some smaller anecdote. FYI: The Arctic is bigger than just Siberia.

The arctic circle has had the coldest summer on record, and the Arctic summer has ended earlier than it has on record (let me know if you can't decipher that any better than you can an IPCC graph). Sea ice extent has grown 30% since last year, and is currently on track to be at or above the average.

So what do you suppose the alarmists will flock to next now that the polar bear alarm has been proven to be bad science (and it is kind to even call it science), and the Arctic sea ice stubbornly refuses to vanish on queue?

More importantly, at what point do you give up defending this collapsing theory?

coldest?

Snow and Arctic sea ice extent plummet suddenly as globe bakes

more likely mixed:

Temperatures at the 925 hPa level for the first two weeks in July were 1 to 3 degrees Celsius (2 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit) above average over much of the Arctic Ocean and as much as 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit) above average over the Kara Sea, where ice loss was pronounced. In contrast, temperatures over Alaska, Siberia and the Canadian Arctic were 3 to 5 degrees Celsius (5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit) lower than average.

Warmer conditions have been paired with a shift in the atmospheric circulation, with a high pressure cell at sea level pressure moving into the central Arctic, replacing then pattern of low pressure that dominated the month of June. This has helped to bring in warm air from the south over the Arctic Ocean. This pattern has also helped to create open water areas in the Laptev Sea because offshore winds push the ice away from shore.

A change of pace | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis
looks similar to last year

COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

 

[marywollstonecraft]

Yes, but the information they use isn't always correct information.

My money is on the likelihood that scientists will have more accurate information on which to base policy decisions on than internet trolls are likely to have.

 

[marywollstonecraft]

Read what I said again and get back to me. And actually read all those linked articles while you are at it. Let me know when one shows a definitive link between GLOBAL WARMING and the particular flood they are reporting on. (Hint: they can't.)





You don't seem to understand how global climate works...





HAHA!! Dude, you are the one hunting for newspaper articles about floods to show that global warming causes more floods.

again, you are not showing yourself to be particularly good at reading.

I have said on a number of occasions that NONE OF This proves anything about global warming.

I have also said that I don't know whether current events are part of a long weather cycle.

It seems that it is you who is trying to find an argument that I am making claims about these events being linked to climate change, when I haven't made that claim.

I have an open mind on this - I think weather events MAY be symptomatic, but I certainly wouldn't rely on them as hard evidence.

You seem to need an all or nothing approach ... a bit like a devout believer of a religious sect.

 

[Lord of Planar]

My money is on the likelihood that scientists will have more accurate information on which to base policy decisions on than internet trolls are likely to have.

I disagree. It seems like the internet trolls parrot what the IPCC says. They are incapable of showing they understand the sciences involved.

 

[Lord of Planar]

looks similar to last year

COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

Well, here is one on top of the other:

As for you correcting jmotivator, you really didn't. He misspoke because his linked article said above 80 degrees, rather than the Arctic Circle. If you actually recognized a scientific difference, you should have started by pointing out that oversight.

As for his statement:

Sea ice extent has grown 30% since last year, and is currently on track to be at or above the average.

That was a correct assessment and evaluation of the trend until early June. Information changes fast.

 

[jmotivator]

coldest?

Snow and Arctic sea ice extent plummet suddenly as globe bakes

See, this is what happens when you are hunting desperately for affirmations... you end up pulling alarmist reports from 2 months ago and present them with out any checks to see if the alarm panned out.

Hint: It didn't.

It turned out to be the coldest summer on record (already provided for you), and the momentary acceleration in ice melt stopped from the warm June as the arctic became much colder, and the resulting extremely short summer this year has lead to a much higher ice extent than recent years.

A change of pace | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis
looks similar to last year

COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

First link: More old news. But note that that blog correctly attributes that accelerated ice melt to local weather conditions as a storm blew through.

Second link Lord of Planar already covered. The down turn of the end of the Arctic summer has come very early.

 

[jmotivator]

again, you are not showing yourself to be particularly good at reading.

I have said on a number of occasions that NONE OF This proves anything about global warming.

OF COURSE YOU HAVE. You have said that Global warming will cause more flooding... granted, you have staked your claim on the absurd argument (that nobody else makes) that global warming is responsible to for cherry picked regional flooding... but being that that is absurd there is really no reason to argue it with you beyond the obvious distribution fallacy of your argument.

I have also said that I don't know whether current events are part of a long weather cycle.

You seem more than willing to attribute them to global warming, though.

It seems that it is you who is trying to find an argument that I am making claims about these events being linked to climate change, when I haven't made that claim.

Nope. I have argued that global warming has not resulted in any increase in extreme weather events around the globe. I have provided you the scientific studies done on the subject and they support my claim. That is all I need to do. The rest of the discussion has been plumbing the depths of your ignorance on the subject.

I have an open mind on this - I think weather events MAY be symptomatic, but I certainly wouldn't rely on them as hard evidence.

They MAY be if it can be shown that there is a global increase to correspond with a the global temperature. Turns out there is no correlation found in the record.

You seem to need an all or nothing approach ... a bit like a devout believer of a religious sect.

It's science. IF global warming causes increase in extreme weather then the warming of the last 150 years would show in the record of extreme weather events. It doesn't. There is no "may" at that point.

 

[Threegoofs]

Oh, look.

LoP is arguing that there isnt much warming in the arctic.

Yet on another thread, he is saying that everyone KNOWS there is warming, its just not antthropogenic. But then on another thread, he says that the warming (which apparently doesnt exist in this thread) is caused by black carbon soot on snow and ice (which apparently in this thread is NOT disappearing).

 

[KLATTU]

OF It's science. IF global warming causes increase in extreme weather then the warming of the last 150 years would show in the record of extreme weather events. It doesn't. There is no "may" at that point.

Precisely. Exactly. The most glaring example -hurricanes. If global warming is supposed to cause hurricanse to get stronger and be more frequent- why hasn't that happened?

 

[jmotivator]

Precisely. Exactly. The most glaring example -hurricanes. If global warming is supposed to cause hurricanse to get stronger and be more frequent- why hasn't that happened?

Yeah, as I said earlier, based on current understanding of hurricane formation mechanics, global warming would lead to FEWER and LESS POWERFUL hurricanes. So the AGW folks COULD use the decline in hurricanes as evidence for their side.... if they were willing to give up on the alarmism.

Chances of that: Zero.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Oh, look.

LoP is arguing that there isnt much warming in the arctic.

Is that a lie on your part, or lack of comprehension? Maybe worse yet, trolling to get me to blow up at you?

I never said or implied that. There is probably more warming in the north polar region than any other place on the planet. Why isn't the south polar region experiencing similar warming?

Yet on another thread, he is saying that everyone KNOWS there is warming, its just not antthropogenic.

That is an intention misinterpretation of my words, or else you don't comprehend the climate sciences enough to know what I am saying.

My point is that CO2 is not the primary warming variable. Solar and soot are the two strongest. Soot is anthropogenic, and CO2 takes third place behind both. I am very consistent in pointing out that CO2 is not the danger reported.

But then on another thread, he says that the warming (which apparently doesnt exist in this thread) is caused by black carbon soot on snow and ice (which apparently in this thread is NOT disappearing).

BC is a very strong warming agent. Especially on arctic area snow and ice. I really would appreciate if you would stop responding to my posts, at least until you understand what you are saying. I am so close to using the IGNORE option on you again.