The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued

[laserguy]

The GW argument is over in my view. It is no longer Global 'Warming' but 'Climate Change' - the nuts want to have it all ways.

And so they will. AGW,Climate Change or whatever is founded entirely upon blatant lies (I was going to put that in capitals),tampered-with data and records and total misinformation about was is really,actually happening. I've said it many times but even in a full-on glaciation there would still be those saying that we're going to fry 'cos of our 'carbon footprint' (jeez),or that we've brought it all on ourselves and it's a result of feedbacks or whatever. If the consequences of the globowarmers getting their way wasn't so incredibly grave,I'd find the whole thing hilarious and treat them as a travelling circus.

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm glad it's all a sham or I'd have been a tad concerned that Paloma has set a new Hurricane record (since we've been keeping them from 1851 that is) giving us 5 consecutive months with a 'major' Hurricane. The old '4 months' record (set in 2005) didn't last long but prior to that (with records going back to 1851) only 'high summer' had Major 'canes.

.......not that anyone has predicted increases in storms or seasons durations that is...oh ,.....hold on,....... didn't those AGW freaks say that this is what we could expect in a warming world....along with a melting polar ice cap ,atmospheric methane increases, carbon sink failures,northerly migration of the polar jet,increased melt from Greenland, northerly migration of the oceanic 10c isotherm, increases in sea level rises, increases in storm frequency over the poles, increases in drought intensity/duration, more extreme flood events.....and so on and so forth.....how wrong could they be eh?...... and not even in a warming world...LOL

[noggin]

Yes, yes, I know it's a blog, but I've come across this report of Dr Pachauri's presentation in lots of places and just randomly chose this particular blog.

Is Dr Pachauri a complete and utter nutcase? Temperatures rising?? I honestly think he's going mad...........

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/11/mich...chauri-for.html

Just how can anyone take him seriously?

It's like the emperor's new clothes......

It's like the furore over standards of decency recently on Radio 2......

Nobody says anything out loud, they keep it to themselves until one or two people speak out and then with relief, everyone else can come out and say what they have actually been thinking for a long time.

Why, oh why, oh why do we have to put up with this AGW stuff and it's ever-increasing silliness? It is creating divisions, whereas, if we all concentrated on the thing that matters here, we could all work together towards a cleaner and better world for us all to live in.

Grumble, grumble............

[Devonian]

Yes, yes, I know it's a blog, but I've come across this report of Dr Pachauri's presentation in lots of places and just randomly chose this particular blog.

Is Dr Pachauri a complete and utter nutcase? Temperatures rising?? I honestly think he's going mad...........

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/11/mich...chauri-for.html

Just how can anyone take him seriously?

It's like the emperor's new clothes......

It's like the furore over standards of decency recently on Radio 2......

Nobody says anything out loud, they keep it to themselves until one or two people speak out and then with relief, everyone else can come out and say what they have actually been thinking for a long time.

Why, oh why, oh why do we have to put up with this AGW stuff and it's ever-increasing silliness? It is creating divisions, whereas, if we all concentrated on the thing that matters here, we could all work together towards a cleaner and better world for us all to live in.

Grumble, grumble............

Noggin, wouldn't it be better to call someone a 'nutcase' when you've heard what he said NOT what someone with an axe to grind says he said?

I've not yet found what Dr P. actually said...

[laserguy]

I'm glad it's all a sham or I'd have been a tad concerned that Paloma has set a new Hurricane record (since we've been keeping them from 1851 that is) giving us 5 consecutive months with a 'major' Hurricane. The old '4 months' record (set in 2005) didn't last long but prior to that (with records going back to 1851) only 'high summer' had Major 'canes.

Hmm...

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/natl_1944_2008.jpg

[noggin]

Dev, I'm going to be quite particular here and will defend myself! I didn't call him a nutcase.........I asked if he was a nutcase, which is different.

No, I was not at the presentation ( ) but have seen enough reports about his graph to believe what has been reported.

You may be of the opinion that there is no substance in what I have said about this, but, hey....we don't all see things the same, do we?

I'm off to make a nice fried egg sandwich for my lunch!

[laserguy]

Dev, I'm going to be quite particular here and will defend myself! I didn't call him a nutcase.........

Ok Noggin,I'll say it for you - the guy's a nutcase (become a veggie to stop climate change!!).And Gore,Hansen etc. Actually very,very clever ones I must admit who know how to play the game to their own ends.

[Devonian]

Ok Noggin,I'll say it for you - the guy's a nutcase (become a veggie to stop climate change!!).And Gore,Hansen etc. Actually very,very clever ones I must admit who know how to play the game to their own ends.

Can you please debate what he said not simply attack the man? Can you do that please.

Edited November 8, 2008 by Devonian

[Devonian]

Dev, I'm going to be quite particular here and will defend myself! I didn't call him a nutcase.........I asked if he was a nutcase, which is different.

No, I was not at the presentation ( ) but have seen enough reports about his graph to believe what has been reported.

You may be of the opinion that there is no substance in what I have said about this, but, hey....we don't all see things the same, do we?

I'm off to make a nice fried egg sandwich for my lunch!

Well, you can watch a video of the talk here. I've seen the graph before, it was in the AR4...

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi laserguy!

I don't quite know how to understand your reply??? I take you understand the NOAA criteria for 'Major Hurricane' and therefore understand the significance of having all of the current 'Hurricane season' , and beyond, blighted by Majors?

We know that, depending on El-Nino/La Nina status sheer can restrict Hurricane development ,due to the variability of the 'trade winds' (or lack of.....amongst other things) but what has that to do with the price of fish?

The NOAA declare that we have never (since records began in 1851) had 5 consecutive months with a 'Major Hurricane' formed in each. The fact that it was as recently as 2005 that the record first fell (with four consecutive months having majors) would have me thinking that ,for some reason, the drivers for Major Hurricane development are extending in duration beyond their previous established time periods.

Why should this be?

We are familiar with the rapid warming of the polar regions and the year on year extensions to the 'melt period' (if we pay any mind to NASA,NOAA,NSIDC 'records' that is) We have been witnessing 'spring-time' grow ever earlier across the northern hemisphere for over 20yrs (with some problems now occurring in breeding due to food sources now no longer being available at 'the right time'). It would now 'appear' that the tropics are both building heat, and holding onto heat, longer in each year allowing for the 2005 'record' to be established, and more amazingly this 2008 record. Nearly half of the year with 'major' Hurricanes??? for me seeing the first southern Atlantic Hurricane off Argentina in the early 00's piqued my curiosity, the 'hybrid' storms that ran into Spain and the Med. also had me Uhhrm and ahring but to have really see a time where you can expect Cat 3 and above from spring through autumn?????

I guess I'll hand it back to you for a 'rational' that doesn't involve global warming......though it'd need to bee pretty bloody good considering we are talking a heat driven phenomena in your 'cooling world'.......

Edited November 8, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[laserguy]

I guess I'll hand it back to you for a 'rational' (where's the 'e'?!) that doesn't involve global warming......though it'd need to be pretty bloody good considering we are talking a heat driven phenomena in your 'cooling world'.......

Good Morning to you,GW! I really can't be ***ed to get bogged down in the quagmire of your post - it could and would take the course that our respective views would inevitably lead it . I'll say this though before I go back to bed. Global temps now less than they were some 70 years ago,despite an 800% increase in Anthro CO2 emissions. Go figure,as they say in the US of A....

[laserguy]

Can you please debate what he said not simply attack the man? Can you do that please.

No,I can't be bothered at the moment,I'd be at it all day and my electric blanket and missus are winking at me . And to be honest the guy is more worthy of such attacks than discussing the utter nonsense he is in the habit of spouting. I'll see him in the next life.

I'll let the astonishing 248 comments so far on this do the talking.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/07/trul...ch-faster-rate/

[Iceberg]

It's quite obvious you can't be bother with anything that might interfere with your views, shame really but does explain why you hold them.

[jethro]

Hi laserguy!

I don't quite know how to understand your reply??? I take you understand the NOAA criteria for 'Major Hurricane' and therefore understand the significance of having all of the current 'Hurricane season' , and beyond, blighted by Majors?

We know that, depending on El-Nino/La Nina status sheer can restrict Hurricane development ,due to the variability of the 'trade winds' (or lack of.....amongst other things) but what has that to do with the price of fish?

The NOAA declare that we have never (since records began in 1851) had 5 consecutive months with a 'Major Hurricane' formed in each. The fact that it was as recently as 2005 that the record first fell (with four consecutive months having majors) would have me thinking that ,for some reason, the drivers for Major Hurricane development are extending in duration beyond their previous established time periods.

Why should this be?

We are familiar with the rapid warming of the polar regions and the year on year extensions to the 'melt period' (if we pay any mind to NASA,NOAA,NSIDC 'records' that is) We have been witnessing 'spring-time' grow ever earlier across the northern hemisphere for over 20yrs (with some problems now occurring in breeding due to food sources now no longer being available at 'the right time'). It would now 'appear' that the tropics are both building heat, and holding onto heat, longer in each year allowing for the 2005 'record' to be established, and more amazingly this 2008 record. Nearly half of the year with 'major' Hurricanes??? for me seeing the first southern Atlantic Hurricane off Argentina in the early 00's piqued my curiosity, the 'hybrid' storms that ran into Spain and the Med. also had me Uhhrm and ahring but to have really see a time where you can expect Cat 3 and above from spring through autumn?????

I guess I'll hand it back to you for a 'rational' that doesn't involve global warming......though it'd need to bee pretty bloody good considering we are talking a heat driven phenomena in your 'cooling world'.......

Morning GW, take a look at this; according to the US Climate Change Science Program, over the long-term, U.S. hurricane landfalls have been declining.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promethe...csp_extrem.html

[Gray-Wolf]

Morning GW, take a look at this; according to the US Climate Change Science Program, over the long-term, U.S. hurricane landfalls have been declining.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promethe...csp_extrem.html

I like the first comment !

As far as I can recall the 'trend' was for the number of 'major' hurricanes to increase ( extreme shear was supposed to kibosh many of the fledgling storms but not the biggies) and ,hey presto, either another 'convenient fluke' or another part of the global climate system fulfilling the predictions.

When I posted the original I checked back over the years to see what was 'supposed to' occur and what 'was' occurring. I cannot escape from the realisation that most of what I read has now come to pass. Be it natural or man made the similarities are uncanny and ,for me, very convincing (like I needed further convincing...LOL).

I know folk of an 'unconvinced' nature would seek to explain away each individual event but when there are so many surely it is easier to see that it IS all falling into a well predicted pattern?

[BARRY]

I like the first comment !

As far as I can recall the 'trend' was for the number of 'major' hurricanes to increase ( extreme shear was supposed to kibosh many of the fledgling storms but not the biggies) and ,hey presto, either another 'convenient fluke' or another part of the global climate system fulfilling the predictions.

When I posted the original I checked back over the years to see what was 'supposed to' occur and what 'was' occurring. I cannot escape from the realisation that most of what I read has now come to pass. Be it natural or man made the similarities are uncanny and ,for me, very convincing (like I needed further convincing...LOL).

I know folk of an 'unconvinced' nature would seek to explain away each individual event but when there are so many surely it is easier to see that it IS all falling into a well predicted pattern?

so if next year their are only 3 months with major storms,are you going to say it is a natural thing or a blip,the latter probably as it will not fit the so called pattern

[Thundery wintry showers]

It's rather convenient that those "sceptic" articles point to graphs of lower troposphere temperature, and give the misleading impression that they refer to surface temperature. They do not, and the lower troposphere warmed at a much lower rate than the surface between 1979 and 1998 and cooled (as opposed to staying constant) since then.

[jethro]

I like the first comment !

As far as I can recall the 'trend' was for the number of 'major' hurricanes to increase ( extreme shear was supposed to kibosh many of the fledgling storms but not the biggies) and ,hey presto, either another 'convenient fluke' or another part of the global climate system fulfilling the predictions.

When I posted the original I checked back over the years to see what was 'supposed to' occur and what 'was' occurring. I cannot escape from the realisation that most of what I read has now come to pass. Be it natural or man made the similarities are uncanny and ,for me, very convincing (like I needed further convincing...LOL).

I know folk of an 'unconvinced' nature would seek to explain away each individual event but when there are so many surely it is easier to see that it IS all falling into a well predicted pattern?

What? You've lost me.... this isn't about predicted trends, it's about what has actually been happening. I'm not explaining away any individual events; the official line is US hurricane landfalls have been decreasing not increasing as you say.

[Gray-Wolf]

What? You've lost me.... this isn't about predicted trends, it's about what has actually been happening. I'm not explaining away any individual events; the official line is US hurricane landfalls have been decreasing not increasing as you say.

All I said was Hurricane 'Paloma' has, for the first time since records began, has been the 5th major Hurricane in 'consecutive months' in the Atlantic basin. The previous record being for 4 consecutive months set back in 2005. Up until that point numerous years managed 3 'majors' in consecutive months (as you would tend to expect it being the height of the hurricane season in those months).

Nothing was mentioned about landfalls (though I bet poor Cuba with 4 'Majors' blasting it this year might!). Seeing as the 'record' concerns only major storms I thought this would form the core of discussion and not the confirmation of the 'predictions that storm numbers (from tropical storm through cat 2) will indeed decrease in line with the model predictions.

I ,for one, would still wish to discuss why 'major storms' have increased their season since the turn of the century as ,obviously, to make a 'major Hurricane' outside the 'normal season' is surely of interest as it would suggest that the 'energy' to fuel such is now available in periods of the year that it wasn't available before.

I imagine that the subject is a little distasteful for 'coolers' and 'contrarians' so I do not expect a great uptake in my offer to discuss the phenomena and any who do will show a willingness to obfuscate and nothing more.

The mechanics of a more vigorous atmosphere leading to 'unfavourable environments' is the opposite side of the same coin but surely not open for discussion here when we are discussing the major storms that DO actually form.

I would suggest for those who do wish to pursue the issue of why 'storm formation failure' is now (apparently?) an issue that they could maybe check out the number of 'tropical waves' leaving Africa throughout the past hurricane seasons in an attempt to establish if there is a downward trend in numbers of these features over the years (as they seem to dictate the formation of a fair number of storms that develop) or whether or not there has been an increase in shear/dust events? or a reduction in sea surface temperature/changes in average pressure across the Atlantic basin? leading to a reduction in numbers of storms forming. This done it would be prudent to then discover what actually 'drives' your findings

Edited November 9, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[laserguy]

It's quite obvious you can't be bother with anything that might interfere with your views, shame really but does explain why you hold them.

Hello Ice! Y'know I'm not going to argue with that. With all due respect (and I really do mean that most sincerely),I honestly feel that certain poster's views are so implacable -and I freely admit to being one of them in light of the current state of affairs - that spending too long arguing one's case is a total waste of time and effort. Many won't believe me but I read carefully all the posts here and the links provided. I've yet to see anything from an AGW point of view which stands up to scrutiny. Trust me please,I will be glad to acknowledge any which do if they perchance to come along. This is why,as far as what is after all a public forum,my contributions have over the course of many months descended into semi-mockery and facetiuosness - hard facts seem to be totally ineffective. I guess we all have pretty much the same access to data,the interpretation of which is down to the individual,same goes for the politics,motivation and response etc. Listen up,if anyone is offended by my tone sometimes,feel free to give it back. A little humour wouldn't go amiss if it's within limits,no?

Anyways,and I've a feeling that this part of my post may well be removed. I'm doing absolutely nothing wrong but yet would understand that course of action. Questions have been raised just lately as to the whereabouts of certain folk who used to be regulars on here. Well,I've found one,and he was one of the big-hitters of the pro-AGW fraternity who was possibly possessed of the powers to make even a diehard sceptic like me think again on occasion. Take a look at this pro AGW blog (y'see,I do read them!),scroll down the responses and a familiar face and name will look right back at you. Wontcha come back to the NW party,fella?

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/10/19/ipc...fied/#more-1123

[The Eagle]

I think the whole premise of the AGW warming argument has been based on the Artic. Now the figures are not going their way. Now we are hearing less about the Artic and, by proxy, less about GW in recent months. God forbid the BBC and other oganisation with specialist climate change reporters have to report an increase in Ice extent

The whole thing is a sham - and infested with vested interest now.

Ultimately that, and the more important issues today in the world, is what is bringing the whole thing crumbling down. They put all their eggs in a basket that is now developing a hole. It might take two or three years of large increases in Artic Ice on previous years but this is year 1 and already the effect on the media at least is being seen.

[laserguy]

Now we are hearing less about the Artic and, by proxy, less about GW in recent months. God forbid the BBC and other oganisation with specialist climate change reporters have to report an increase in Ice extent

Yes,I scanned the news yesterday,the day when Arctic ice extent had surpassed 2002 levels and all the years inbetween. Did I find anything? Don't be so b****y daft! When it gets to the point where it simply has to be reported to the mainstream,the increased ice and falling global temps will be a result of warming. Know it .

[Thundery wintry showers]

Some of the "science" being expressed here is completely mind-boggling. I mean, it's worse than circular reasoning (sorry, but I have to call it like it is).

The AGW argument is not based on the Arctic, it is based on the notion that as humans continue to release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, temperatures will show an erratic rise (erratic due to natural variability being superimposed on the anthropogenic warming). There has been consistent speculation that polar regions, especially the Arctic, will warm faster than the rest of the globe, and the Arctic has indeed been doing so. There is, of course, room for argument on this, as the Arctic isn't much warmer than it was in the 1930s, and the Antarctic interior hasn't warmed much, but there is nothing here "disproving" the AGW argument, just signs that we still have a long way to go before we can fully understand the extent of human impacts on the climate, whether we are overestimating or underestimating them.

It's all very well presenting lower stratosphere temperature graphs but the AGW argument concerns surface temperatures, which have risen significantly between 1975 and 1998, and then remained steady since then, they have not cooled over the last decade as some like to make out.

The Arctic undergoing a remarkable ice recovery in autumn does not prove that the Arctic hasn't been warming. To say that, after dismissing the idea that the record melt of 2007 was "proof" of AGW, is extremely hypocritical.

There are certainly question marks over AGW and it isn't as settled as many people make out, whether from the pro or anti camps.

[jethro]

All I said was Hurricane 'Paloma' has, for the first time since records began, has been the 5th major Hurricane in 'consecutive months' in the Atlantic basin. The previous record being for 4 consecutive months set back in 2005. Up until that point numerous years managed 3 'majors' in consecutive months (as you would tend to expect it being the height of the hurricane season in those months).

Nothing was mentioned about landfalls (though I bet poor Cuba with 4 'Majors' blasting it this year might!). Seeing as the 'record' concerns only major storms I thought this would form the core of discussion and not the confirmation of the 'predictions that storm numbers (from tropical storm through cat 2) will indeed decrease in line with the model predictions.

I ,for one, would still wish to discuss why 'major storms' have increased their season since the turn of the century as ,obviously, to make a 'major Hurricane' outside the 'normal season' is surely of interest as it would suggest that the 'energy' to fuel such is now available in periods of the year that it wasn't available before.

I imagine that the subject is a little distasteful for 'coolers' and 'contrarians' so I do not expect a great uptake in my offer to discuss the phenomena and any who do will show a willingness to obfuscate and nothing more.

The mechanics of a more vigorous atmosphere leading to 'unfavourable environments' is the opposite side of the same coin but surely not open for discussion here when we are discussing the major storms that DO actually form.

I would suggest for those who do wish to pursue the issue of why 'storm formation failure' is now (apparently?) an issue that they could maybe check out the number of 'tropical waves' leaving Africa throughout the past hurricane seasons in an attempt to establish if there is a downward trend in numbers of these features over the years (as they seem to dictate the formation of a fair number of storms that develop) or whether or not there has been an increase in shear/dust events? or a reduction in sea surface temperature/changes in average pressure across the Atlantic basin? leading to a reduction in numbers of storms forming. This done it would be prudent to then discover what actually 'drives' your findings

I was confused that's all. As it happens, and speaking from an entirely personal perspective, it is the attitude expressed in the part of your post that I have highlighted, which deters me from entering into many discussions. I find the tone tedious, inflammatory and entirely unnecessary. Reasoned, logical, on topic debate is what "floats my boat"; TWS and I share many opposing views but that doesn't prevent us entering into discussions with no inclination to obfuscate from either party. The stance in this debate isn't the deciding factor, the style of communication is.

Perhaps you should start another specific thread for this topic?

[Gray-Wolf]

New discussion on the changes to the Hurricane season/intensities now opened.

Jethro, I meant no offence to any folk who make pertinent replies to posts only those who reply with nonsense or unsubstantiated claims and fetch nothing to the thread/topic but frustration.