Climate Change: Storms named after CC-ignoring politicians

[Tender Branson]

Don't know if this has been posted yet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efAUCG9oTb8

Would be great.

[barfbag]

Politicians are storms.

[Miles]

Haha; funny idea.

[The Free North]

Don't know if this has been posted yet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efAUCG9oTb8

Would be great.

I'm going to enjoy laughing at this in 20 years when the PDO and AMO are both negative and we wind up with a solar cycle even weaker than SC24.

Sad really to see how brainwashed the population has been. Its borderline disturbing to be honest.

[The Free North]

In case anyone was wondering Antarctic sea ice continues its record climb

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html


Arctic ice is at its highest levels for this point since 2009

[The Free North]

And the YTD Global surface anomaly is miniscule. As far as I remember mid levels are even colder

But screw science, we have names of storms after EVIL people

[The Free North]

As far as the moronic claim made by the video that climate change is causing 'more frequent storms'


A quick check of global ACE will show us that this is simply not true, hurricanes are NOT becoming more deadly and more common, rather the data reflects a reasonable decadal trend probably perpetrated by the NAO and AMO in the atlantic and PDO and MJO in the pacific, with the MJO working in tandem with the ENSO.

The only discernible trend is that major hurricanes are slightly increasing, while hurricanes overall are decreasing. Furthermore, ACE has dropped off from its relative high in the 90's to reflect the overall more timid nature of hurricane seasons over the past decade or so.


But no, no one has time for that, lets resort to name calling and 5 year old insults, thats a much better way to go about it.


 

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Funny until 2:21, when the video-makers show that they are almost as meteorologically/climatologically ignorant as the people they're ridiculing.

[Ban my account ffs!]

At this point, this is all that climate change alarmists have left:  To attack the stupid deniers who don't believe.

There will be an incredible amount of media hype with the release of the 5th assessment report by the IPCC this month.  No doubt you'll end September thinking hurricanes are becoming more frequent, dangerous tornadoes are becoming more frequent, and extreme weather events are becoming more frequent.

Numerous new papers by reputable climate scientists in "good standing" with the alarmist crowd have found that extreme weather is not becoming more frequent... in fact, it is becoming *less* frequent.

Large tornadoes (EF3 and above) have become less frequent in the United States since the 1970s, when they peaked in numbers.

Global tropical cyclone activity has been on the decline and is currently in a rut.  Only the Atlantic basin has shown an increase, which makes sense because the Atlantic seems to have a negative correlation with overall global activity.  Pacific tropical cyclone activity, where the most storms occur, has been falling off the bottom of the scale for a number of years now.

Not to mention that the planet has not warmed in 15 years.  Here are some excerpts taken from the climate skeptic blog "the Hockey Shtick" from a new paper published in Nature's Climate Change journal:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What that means is that only a few simulations even entered the top error bars of observational uncertainty... likely no simulations actually simulated less warming than was actually observed.  Some just got within the higher limits of the statistical uncertainty.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So they admit the trend since 1998 has not been statistically significant from zero.  The climate models simulated 4 times more warming since 1998 than actually occurred.  These simulations included data inputs from El Niño/La Niña, volcanic eruptions, and changes in solar activity... suggesting the hiatus in warming is not, at least according to the models, being caused by those natural variables... despite a plethora of recent papers trying to blame everything and its mother for the slowdown (my favorite being that the heat is magically being sequestered to the bottom of the ocean where we can't see it despite never being observed in the atmosphere or the top 700 meters of the entire global ocean surface... but hey, at this point they're desperate).


From a June study by John Christy, the lead scientist that compiles government satellite temperature data showing the divergence between the modeled world and reality.

Other papers recently published:

Sea level in Vietnam was 5 feet higher than present 6000 years ago during the Holocene Climate Optimum (the point in this interglacial when the planets orbit was such that global temperatures were at their peak... read:  warmer than today)

Regarding hurricanes:  During the past 50 years, 5.6 major hurricanes struck the United States per decade.  The 50 years preceding that?  8.4 per decade.

Between 1979-2011, there was a 1-2% increase in solar energy received and absorbed at the earth's surface.  This amounts to 2.7 watts per meter squared on the surface of the earth.  This global "brightening" is much larger than the accepted 0.8 watts per meter squared that increased CO2 is expected to have contributed over the same period.  This brightening could explain all of the climate change since 1979.

And regarding Pacific tropical cyclones:  A recent paper finds they're currently at their lowest levels of the past 5000 years.


The decline is especially apparent since the 1970s, when human driven global warming is supposed to have 'taken over' and become the main driver of climate change.

[emailking]

Snowguy716 and CTRattlesnake, what point are you guys trying to make? That global warming is certainly false, a complete non-issue, and we should ignore it? Or that the science behind global warming is uncertain enough that skeptics should not be mocked?

I could agree with the latter, but the tone of your posts suggest the former. Even if global warming turns out to be "wrong" it seems to me the evidence is strong enough that there is  decent (even if not likely) possibiltiy that it is correct, and potentially devastating consequences are such that we are compelled to prepare for that possibility.

[barfbag]

This is funny. We had storm Obama twice so hopefully this is the last time.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Snowguy716 and CTRattlesnake, what point are you guys trying to make? That global warming is certainly false, a complete non-issue, and we should ignore it? Or that the science behind global warming is uncertain enough that skeptics should not be mocked?

I could agree with the latter, but the tone of your posts suggest the former. Even if global warming turns out to be "wrong" it seems to me the evidence is strong enough that there is  decent (even if not likely) possibiltiy that it is correct, and potentially devastating consequences are such that we are compelled to prepare for that possibility.

Then show me the evidence that the consequences are devastating.

The entire point is that this type of "concern trolling" and alarmism is unnecessary because it is becoming quite clear through observational evidence that warming from a doubling of CO2 is well below the lower bounds of the current IPCC predictions.

The IPCC authors already came out and said the previous upper bounds were almost certainly not going to happen.

Now climate scientists are "discovering" things that skeptics have been talking about for years.  Two bombshell papers were recently released that pin the recent lack of warming is due to a natural cycle of the Pacific ocean.  Right now climate scientists are grudgingly admitting that this oceanic oscillation has caused the lack of warming... it's only a matter of time before they admit it also caused much of the rapid warming during the 1980s and '90s.  The most recent paper suggests this to be the case... that in a regime of El Niños in rapid succession, the planet will warm.  When La Niñas are more common, the planet will cool.

In that same paper they were able to rule out CO2 as having any impact on the Pacific ocean cycle in question and that solar activity and volcanic activity were the drivers.

So yeah... if it sounds like we're saying "get your head out of your ass... the world is not coming to an end" it's because that's *precisely* what we're saying.

Global warming due to human emissions of CO2 will be small, adaptable, and probably beneficial to the biosphere and human civilization.

And this slight to moderate warming will probably be canceled out by natural climate drivers that are all now pointing negative.

If you look at the cumulative index of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, it peaked in 2005 after rising since 1976, and has been falling since.  It also appears the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which had been rising since the 1980s has also peaked and is about to head downwards.

Couple this with the weakest solar sunspot cycle in a century and a predicted slowdown in solar activity to levels not seen since the height of the Little Ice Age, and you have to start worrying more about cooling than warming.

1)  There is no hockeystick.  Proxy record after proxy record from South America, Greenland, Antarctica, Tibet, eastern North America, central Europe, the Middle East... all show no hockeystick.  In fact, these proxies tend to disagree with our modern thermometer measurements as they mostly say the period around 1940 and again the 1980s was the warmest in modern times... not today.  And that temperatures were warmer 1000 years ago during a period of strong solar activity that coincided with the "Medieval Warm Period."

2)  Despite all the hoopla about more extreme weather, strong tornadoes are declining in frequency (last year was a near record low for activity and this year has beaten the record low).  Pacific tropical cyclones, by far the most numerous in the world, are at their lowest levels in 5000 years.. with a particularly strong decline since 1970.  Wind speeds around the world have decreased, and baroclinic mid-latitude storms have become weaker as well.

3)  Despite all the hoopla about an Arctic death spiral, Antarctic sea ice is growing more extensive and Antarctica is cooling.  Most of the glaciers in East Antarctica have been expanding in recent decades.. and the trend in sea ice is positive and accelerating... so that even though the Arctic has seen a decline, overall global sea ice cover has not declined.

Nearly every claim you hear about global warming is being proved false by real world observations.  That's why I have a problem with this bullsh**t dogmatic religion where observations are thrown out in favor of computer models that tell them what they want to hear coupled with the witch hunts against anybody who doesn't toe the line.

The Alarmists jumped the shark long ago.

[The Free North]

Snowguy716 and CTRattlesnake, what point are you guys trying to make? That global warming is certainly false, a complete non-issue, and we should ignore it? Or that the science behind global warming is uncertain enough that skeptics should not be mocked?

I could agree with the latter, but the tone of your posts suggest the former. Even if global warming turns out to be "wrong" it seems to me the evidence is strong enough that there is  decent (even if not likely) possibiltiy that it is correct, and potentially devastating consequences are such that we are compelled to prepare for that possibility.

I am more inclined towards the former. I believe that we are in no danger whatsoever from AGW, and that much of the warming that we have experienced is due to natural forcing and will ultimately reverse itself within the next couple of decades. The idea that a trace gas needed for life is somehow going to kill us all is nothing but fear-mongering, especially considering the numerous other factors that contribute to global temperature on a whole. We as a society have been pushed and prodded into believing a hoax that is nothing more than that...a hoax.

The problem is that many who believe in the hoax are uneducated, in fact, we all are to a certain degree. The atmosphere is incredibly complex, controlled by chaos theory, and ultimately wholly unpredictable. IPCC predictions have already busted, sea ice alarmists have been proven wrong time and time again, and nearly ever lie perpetrated by the media on storms has been refuted time and time again.

Do I believe that some forcing comes from CO2? Of course, the inflation of the troposphere and tropopause is a real phenomena, just not enough to affect us on a significant level. You have to remember that CO2 makes up only a few parts per MILLION of our atmosphere, and the increases in CO2 over the past century have been so incredibly minute that without extremely sensitive equipment monitoring the atmosphere, we wouldnt even notice. I have spent years studying global and regional teleconnections and how the alter the weather in both hemispheres. The interactions are complex, but the results are compelling. When they put forth a certain signal, the earth responds accordingly, with solar involved, the results are even more extraordinary.

The idea that a 20-30 year increase in surface temperature is somehow definitive is nonsensical to anyone with a basic understanding of climatology. Climate is measured on thousands or hundreds of thousands of years, 20 years is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of our climate history.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

WALL OF TEXT THAT NO ONE READS BUT YOU SURE HOPE LOOKS IMPRESSIVE AND 'SCIENCEY'.

MISLEADING GRAPH

ANOTHER WALL OF TEXT (SEE ABOVE FOR DETAILS, ETC.)

LAUGHABLE TABLE

ANOTHER WALL OF TEXT (IBID)

MISLEADING GRAPH

SMUG CONCLUDING REMARKS

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

WALL OF TEXT THAT NO ONE READS BUT YOU SURE HOPE LOOKS IMPRESSIVE AND 'SCIENCEY'.

MISLEADING GRAPH

ANOTHER WALL OF TEXT (SEE ABOVE FOR DETAILS, ETC.)

LAUGHABLE TABLE

ANOTHER WALL OF TEXT (IBID)

MISLEADING GRAPH

SMUG CONCLUDING REMARKS

How were the graphs misleading?

[Ban my account ffs!]

WALL OF TEXT THAT NO ONE READS BUT YOU SURE HOPE LOOKS IMPRESSIVE AND 'SCIENCEY'.

MISLEADING GRAPH

ANOTHER WALL OF TEXT (SEE ABOVE FOR DETAILS, ETC.)

LAUGHABLE TABLE

ANOTHER WALL OF TEXT (IBID)

MISLEADING GRAPH

SMUG CONCLUDING REMARKS

One thing I've learned after 6 years of posting on Atlas is that you are truly a miserable human being.

Nobody can be as nasty as you are to others without feeling pretty awful about yourself.  And you should.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

WHERES YOUR SENSE OF HUMOUR AMIRITE?!!!!

[Ban my account ffs!]

WHERES YOUR SENSE OF HUMOUR AMIRITE?!!!!

Don't you worry about my sense of humor.  You've got enough on your plate already.

[Torie]

Ii actually read this thing at the barbershop, and all I got out of it, is that fires were burner harder longer because they had been suppressed earlier, thereby defying nature's more pacific regime when it came to violent oscillations (take the burn vaccine now, it may hurt, but the alternative is worse if you get unlucky). Did I miss something?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

WALL OF TEXT THAT NO ONE READS BUT YOU SURE HOPE LOOKS IMPRESSIVE AND 'SCIENCEY'.

MISLEADING GRAPH

ANOTHER WALL OF TEXT (SEE ABOVE FOR DETAILS, ETC.)

LAUGHABLE TABLE

ANOTHER WALL OF TEXT (IBID)

MISLEADING GRAPH

SMUG CONCLUDING REMARKS

One thing I've learned after 6 years of posting on Atlas is that you are truly a miserable human being.

Nobody can be as nasty as you are to others without feeling pretty awful about yourself.  And you should.

I found it quite ironic that he's criticizing you for being "SMUG".

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And I reiterate my question...  Come on, Al... if you're going to criticize, at least back it up...

WALL OF TEXT THAT NO ONE READS BUT YOU SURE HOPE LOOKS IMPRESSIVE AND 'SCIENCEY'.

MISLEADING GRAPH

ANOTHER WALL OF TEXT (SEE ABOVE FOR DETAILS, ETC.)

LAUGHABLE TABLE

ANOTHER WALL OF TEXT (IBID)

MISLEADING GRAPH

SMUG CONCLUDING REMARKS

How were the graphs misleading?

[The Free North]

WALL OF TEXT THAT NO ONE READS BUT YOU SURE HOPE LOOKS IMPRESSIVE AND 'SCIENCEY'.

MISLEADING GRAPH

ANOTHER WALL OF TEXT (SEE ABOVE FOR DETAILS, ETC.)

LAUGHABLE TABLE

ANOTHER WALL OF TEXT (IBID)

MISLEADING GRAPH

SMUG CONCLUDING REMARKS

First off, I know using a computer doesnt come easy to you, but typing in all caps is generally frowned upon here.

Secondly, none of my graphs were misleading, if you dont understand what they're saying, ask, but dont throw insults because you have no clue whats going on.

Lastly, if you actually watched the video in the OP, you'll see most of the AGW alarmists are far more 'smug' and show fewer 'misleading graphs' than the deniers that post here.

Ultimately, its clear you have no idea whats being discussed but feel the need to try to slander people who are posting actual facts and data. I would suggest leaving if you have nothing to contribute rather than spewing words all over the page.

[The Free North]

Ii actually read this thing at the barbershop, and all I got out of it, is that fires were burner harder longer because they had been suppressed earlier, thereby defying nature's more pacific regime when it came to violent oscillations (take the burn vaccine now, it may hurt, but the alternative is worse if you get unlucky). Did I miss something?

Not sure if I understand you fully, but yes, wildfires on the west coast are linked to the PDO or Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

We are currently in the negative phase of the PDO which is defined by cooler pacific temps along the west coast and stretching up into alaska. There are upper air patterns associated with this but there not important really for fire patterns. The long and short of it is that the cooler waters offshore tend to create drier, sinking air in California, which in turn promotes wildfires. Just because fire is 'hot' doesnt mean it has anything to do with the supposed warming of the globe, in fact the opposite is true.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

WALL OF TEXT THAT NO ONE READS BUT YOU SURE HOPE LOOKS IMPRESSIVE AND 'SCIENCEY'.

MISLEADING GRAPH

ANOTHER WALL OF TEXT (SEE ABOVE FOR DETAILS, ETC.)

LAUGHABLE TABLE

ANOTHER WALL OF TEXT (IBID)

MISLEADING GRAPH

SMUG CONCLUDING REMARKS

*one guy applauds quietly; slowly*
*audience starts to nod heads at each other as the clapping grows*
*full-blown applause breaks out*

[Sbane]

WALL OF TEXT THAT NO ONE READS BUT YOU SURE HOPE LOOKS IMPRESSIVE AND 'SCIENCEY'.

MISLEADING GRAPH

ANOTHER WALL OF TEXT (SEE ABOVE FOR DETAILS, ETC.)

LAUGHABLE TABLE

ANOTHER WALL OF TEXT (IBID)

MISLEADING GRAPH

SMUG CONCLUDING REMARKS

*one guy applauds quietly; slowly*
*audience starts to nod heads at each other as the clapping grows*
*full-blown applause breaks out*

Yeah, no need to back up your claim. Just form a big enough group and laugh at the "others".