(Photo credits: NOAA)
By WUWT regular “Just The Facts”
We are pleased to introduce WUWT’s newest addition, the WUWT “Extreme Weather” Reference Page.
Realizing the difficulty in selling “Global Warming” when the globe hasn’t warmed in the last 16 years, the Warmists are now attempting to convince the public that CO2 has somehow caused “Extreme Weather”. This “Extreme Weather” meme follows a number of other ill-fated Warmist narratives including “Climate Change“, “Ocean Acidification”, “Global Weirding” and “Climate Disruption”.
Being the skeptical sort I looked at the Big Picture and noted that “There is no evidence of a recent increase in “Earth’s Temperature” due to “Climate Change,” which could have caused “Extreme Weather” to arrive and become the “new normal”. However, this observation got me labeled an “Extreme Denier” and “Tamino seemed disappointed that I had not attempted to debunk claims that there’s been a ‘dramatic increase in weather-related catastrophes.'” As such, with the help of an array of WUWT readers and articles, we crowdsourced the WUWT “Extreme Weather” Reference Page. I leave it to you to review and decide for yourself whether you think there has been dramatic increase in “Extreme Weather”.
As in the crowdsourcing thread, if you have any suggestions for additional credible 3rd party data on weather extremes, please post them in comments below and we will review them for inclusion. It is interesting to note that I provided Bill McKibben with an opportunity to submit non-anecdotal empirical evidence in support of the “Extreme Weather” meme and he apparently had none to offer.
In addition to our “Extreme Weather” Page if you have not had the opportunity to look through some our other Reference Pages it is highly recommended:
- Atmosphere Page
- Atmospheric Oscillation Page
- ENSO (El Nino/La Nina Southern Oscillation) Page
- “Extreme Weather” Page
- Geomagnetism Page
- Global Climatic History Page
- Global Temperature Page
- Ocean Page
- Oceanic Oscillation Page
- Polar Vortex Page
- Potential Climatic Variables Page
- Scafetta’s Solar-Lunar Cycle Forecast -vs- Global Temperature
- Sea Ice Page
- Solar Page
- Spencer and Braswell Papers
- Tropical Cyclone Page
- US Climatic History Page
- US Weather Page
Please note that WUWT cannot vouch for the accuracy of the data within the Reference Pages, as WUWT is simply an aggregator. All of the data is linked from third party sources. If you have doubts about the accuracy of any of the graphs on the WUWT Reference Pages, or have any suggested additions or improvements to any of the pages, please let us know in comments below.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Nice job. Thanks for all the effort, it’s appreciated.
My question remains: What is motivating this intensive, daily effort by you and your supporters to deny that there is environmental damage done to our ecosystem by our use of fossil fuels? Could it be that you are affiliated with and supported by the Heartland Institute, a major supporter of the fossil fuel industry? If not, please explain what you have to gain by continuing to deny that there are environmental problems that could be solved by a reduction in the use of fossil fuels? Can you justify that the continued and increasing use of fossil fuels is a good thing for our planet? If you are fueled by anything other than greed and an interest in advancing your own interests, could you please state what your motivation is, so that those of us with open minds might begin to understand? Read more about my questions and concerns, if you like at http://www.buckyworld.me.
Yes, Pat.
The continued use of fossil fuels, the lowered priced of energy, and the improved lifestyles of billions under moral guidelines, intelligent unrestricted use, and free economic systems WILL save billions of lives.
Your enforced poverty of the CAGW theist dogma and its artificial fuel restrictions based on groundless fears and hatred of the current economic systems WILL (deliberately) kill millions, and harm billions.
Pat, I’ve gotten the same kind of question aimed at me *many* times over the years because I criticize the science behind the smoking bans. The attacks from that front in that area of contention were so single-minded and extreme in the 1990s that I felt I specifically had to address them in the first two lines of my book published in 2004:
“I am not now, nor have I ever, been a member of the Communist Party. I am also not now, nor have I ever, been affiliated with Big Tobacco or their stocks, nor do I have any plans to be.”
Your question is legitimate, just as similar questions of Free Choice advocates are legitimate. BUT… the legitimacy fails when you would use any admissions of such connections as grounds for discrediting their science and arguments while at the same time refusing to apply such grounds to those on the other side of the issue. The legitimacy also fails when you DEPEND on such grounds for discrediting your opponents rather than merely using the information as a warning flag that their science and arguments might merit a bit of extra scrutiny because of their motivations.
Pat, I notice you don’t seem to have a comments area on your site (unless I simply need new glasses.) While that’s far better than having a comments area that’s censored against legitimate opposing writers it still leaves you in a weaker position than if you presented a board similar to WUWT’s (unless you want to submit some sound evidence that Anthony et al censor legitimate ideas and arguments here… something I haven’t seen any evidence of.)
– MJM
I do have a comments area, and I accept all comments. Also, the fact that you have previously supported the tobacco companies is right in line with my concern, that you are all supporters of Heartland Institute causes. Can someone please address what the Heartland Institute is, and why reasonable people should believe it is anything other than a shill for corporate “persons” who wish to profit at the expense of the public good? I’m getting alot of kick back, but still no one who expresses any true heart for a cause that clicks with me as legitimate.
Pat Ravasio says: December 8, 2012 at 5:41 pm
My question remains: What is motivating this intensive, daily effort by you and your supporters to deny that there is environmental damage done to our ecosystem by our use of fossil fuels?
Can present any evidence to support your viewpoint?
Could it be that you are affiliated with and supported by the Heartland Institute, a major supporter of the fossil fuel industry?
I’ve never received a dime from anyone for any of the work I’ve done on WUWT.
If not, please explain what you have to gain
Fulfillment from helping prevent the world from wasting billions of dollars in additional resources on problems that don’t exist, e.g. “Extreme Weather”.
by continuing to deny that there are environmental problems that could be solved by a reduction in the use of fossil fuels?
Can you please present evidence of these “environmental problems” and explain how they “could be solved by a reduction in the use of fossil fuels?”
If you are fueled by anything other than greed and an interest in advancing your own interests, could you please state what your motivation is, so that those of us with open minds might begin to understand?
I’ve researched the facts thoroughly and have not found any evidence in support of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming narrative, I thus feel compelled to share these facts with others. Have you had an opportunity to review our reference pages?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/
I can’t find any data on your site. If the evidence for Global Warming is so clear that it cannot be denied, why don’t you display it prominently on your site?
Re: “the Warmists are now attempting to convince the public that CO2 has somehow caused “Extreme Weather”. ”
I believe Michael Crichton first pointed this out as an evolution of the Warmists’ failing arguments in his excellent “State Of Fear” novel of 2004. Actually Crichton’s book was the trigger for my first questioning in the AGW area. It wasn’t one I’d really looked into in the past, and, just as in many folks I’ve criticized politically in other areas over the years, I’d simply accepted the “general knowledge” and “opinion of the experts” in the area as being unquestioned fact except by those with an axe to grind for “the industry.” Great stocking stuffer for any readers you know who might have a crack in their mind widened a bit by seeing his treatment of it.
– MJM
Pat Ravisio,
Did you go read the material in this article, or do any of the back-reading of this blog that has been suggested for you to do in the past? If you REALLY wanted to understand what motivates us, you’d’ve done that by now.
Since you haven’t, you’re just acting the part of the worst kind of troll…the kind that doesn’t actually know anything, and therefore can only hope to derail the conversation by bringing in nonsense like conspiracy theories in the hopes of making people angry.
My answer to you, and I hope everyone else’s answer to you, until you bring something substantive to the table is…go do your homework.
When you appear knowledgeable enough to take seriously, then maybe you can even make a difference by providing something of value, but until then you only hurt your own side by providing an example of warmist ignorance. Back-read this blog. Actually read the articles you want to reply to, so that there’s a vague chance that you can provide something useful ON TOPIC.
Go do your homework.
BTW, RACookPE1978, your statement of one of the most important skeptical motivations was perfect. Just don’t expect Pat to read it or understand it. Although he seems to be asking questions, he’s not here to learn, or he’d’ve done his homework.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
This is fine but maybe you also need a permanent reference page for “average weather”, as nobody seems to be bothered with that these days.
If global temperatures had simply behaved as predicted and steadily increased in unison with CO2 levels, there would be no need to hype normal extreme weather events as evidence for global warming. There would also be no need to play this shell game of trying to guess where the grant-money pea is located. (Is it under the “global weirding” cup, the “ocean acidification” cup, or the “climate disruption” cup?) Decades of steady warming would not be “proof”, but it would be solid evidence, and everyone would understand what was meant by “global warming.” But because global temperatures have been flat for 16 years, they have to play these games to keep people from forgetting about their cause, which to them is a higher priority than science.
Pat, some people are motivated by the search for truth and can see when they are being deceived. Others buy into propaganda, tolerate it or even promote it for their own gain. I’m a scientist and skeptic not motivated by politics or greed.
This revised AGW position involves the abandonment of science. “CO2 causes weird weather” is not a falsifiable hypothesis. There is no known mechanism that explains how CO2 causes both rain and drought, heat and cold, let alone wind and calm. The perverse moods of a Rain God would serve as a far more likely explanation for all these phenomena and is consistent with Occam’s Razor.
Thank you, all of you, for ten replies in ten minutes! The dedication and fortitude of your team is indeed impressive. Please, if you can, check out the NASA photographs and explain to me why they are not a concern for the human race on planet earth? I do confess that I am not a scientist. I am only seeking the truth, and remain open to your input. Thank you so much!
Pat Ravasio, and your conviction against fossil fuel lends you to claim not to own a gas powered vehicle or enjoy any of the other comforts of fossil fuels. Your hypocrisy is beyond self righteous condemnation of others while you prosper on the back of a common adherence to energy, fossil or otherwise. No response necessary, as my courtesy bag is already over flowing.
Pat Ravasio effectively says: December 8, 2012 at 5:41 pm: Have you stopped beating your wife ? Google it Pat.
Please provide references to any measurable environmental problems caused by CO2 at 394ppm that were not present when CO2 levels were at 280ppm. Windfarms and other examples of environmental destruction caused by the purported solutions don’t count.
If you can’t, then please STFU.
You get to see some interesting, although not easily interpretable, results if you use Google’s NGram tool on the phrases
carbon dioxide, global warming, climate change, extreme weather
Try all four at the default setting of 1800 to 2008 (smoothing 3) and you’ll find that CO2 was way up there until 1960 or so at which point, for some unknown reason (maybe everyone got more worried about H-Bombs?) it drops significantly. Then try removing CO2 and you’ll see a bit more information about the other three, and then, if you change the time scale to starting at 1960 or 1975 you’ll see even more. The switchover from global warming to climate change in terms of mention-frequency occurs around 2002, about the time when Crichton probably started writing his State of Fear.
For further comparison, try adding the phrase Star Trek (capitalization matters) and you’ll see interest switch over right around 1999.
http://books.google.com/ngrams
– MJM
…WUWT Extreme Weather page is another tool to search out the curiosities we find interesting about climate. I could quote our friend Joe Bastardi in enjoying our weather. 🙂
Out of interest, I did a bit of a search for the image of the train station. On the NOAA web site it is named floodingAug and dated March 2008. I found it on a blog (http://jewishmuzic.blogspot.com.au/2007/07/jewish-blogmiester-exclusive-pictures.html), dated Thursday, July 19, 2007, identified as Great Neck Train Station (with the flooding occurring July 18)
Pat Ravasio says:
December 8, 2012 at 5:41 pm
============
Due to the “carbon” intensive nature of the energy sources that enable us to even have this conversation, i’ll be short.
I’m sure you will reciprocate.
@ur momisugly Rat Pavisio, Still waiting for my check, would yah loan me a few thou until it comes in.
I ridicule nonsense from all religious cults that attempt to steal from, control and or interfere with me and mine.
Public hysteria comes in waves, its our nature.
But lying to exploit the foolish, hiding the data, exaggerating your claims through falsehoods and attempting to seize power is contemptible behaviour. Is this something you will defend?
Are the practises of climatology, as practised by the UN- IPCC, ethical enough for you?
Now wetting ones-self about the weather is an age old tradition and you are welcome to do so,
but insisting I behave like you, will of course end badly.
Pat, you wrote, “Also, the fact that you have previously supported the tobacco companies is right in line with my concern, that you are all supporters of Heartland Institute causes.”
1) WUWT in no way “supports the tobacco companies.” The tobacco situation is purely a personal concern of mine, with the science problems involved in it predating but roughly paralleling the global warming fiasco. I don’t actually know when Heartland was founded, but I’ve been in the smoking ban fight since the mid-1970s and have no more connection to them than I do to BigT. You seem to be critical of Heartland, but is that because you have actual criticisms of their scientific positions or simply because of some funding connections they may have? Are you similarly critical of the global warming folks who support or are supported by well-funded warmer organizations? Would that then make you critical of yourself?
2) And where did you happen to notice any support of mine for the tobacco companies? Or is that something you just made up? I was and am vigorously opposed to their support for the MSA Master Settlement Agreement and PM’s support for the FDA agreement, and for opposition most of Big Tobacco seems to be taking against the E-cigarettes. I think your confusion in that area may simply reflect your confusion in the climate area.
3) I apologize for my oversight on missing your Comments area: the bubble with the number in it simply slipped by me as I looked beneath the postings for “Comments” tabs — purely my fault.
– MJM
P.S. In case my sentence structure was unclear: I’d also like to make clear that I myself have no relation to WUWT other than as a reader and occasional somewhat-newbie poster. I *have* however become very favorably impressed with the seemingly sound knowledge and argument of the major writers and posters here. You should read the archives and compare them with the archives you’ll find on blogs from the other side… THEN you might have firmer ground to stand upon.
– MJM
Pat Ravasio says: December 8, 2012 at 7:16 pm
Please, if you can, check out the NASA photographs here, www,buckyworld.me and explain to me why they are not a concern for the human race on planet earth?
I looked around your site and don’t see the NASA photographs you reference. Can you please provide links here so that we can see them?
In your article you state that:
If it’s relatively easy to do, why can’t you provide “charts and graphs and numbers” to support your position?
I do confess that I am not a scientist.
You don’t have to be a scientist to have an informed position, just look at the data:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-weather-climate/global-temperature/
I am only seeking the truth
That’s two of us.
and remain open to your input.
You have a funny way of showing it, e.g.:
It seems like you have seen “very good” “substantiating” evidence supporting skeptical viewpoints, but still refer to those who present the evidence as deniers. Why?
I wonder what happened to ‘NINO 3.4 Ensemble Forecast’ (the second graph on the ENSO page)? It hasn’t been updated for months. I used to follow that graph practically every day and it was being updated every day. The current one is dated to September 24 and predicts El Nino conditions from December all the way to July. 🙂
I discovered this page recently but in there too ENSO predictions is updated once a month. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CDB/Forecast/figf4.shtml
The Bureau of Meteorology has a similar page as well but I believe that is updated once a fortnight.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
Please, JustTheFactsWUWT, can you fix that up for us with decent graph that is updated everyday like the good old times. 🙂
Even if it’s not fixable, we still owe you a million thanks for putting together WUWT climate reference pages.
michaeljmcfadden says:
December 8, 2012 at 8:16 pm
================
Dis-information.
Is just slimy, and ain’t fooling anybody.