Weather is climate, or loaded dice, or something

From the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)  more instituitional worrying turned press release leading up to the upcoming WMO report. I wonder where they get the increase in hurricane intensity from? Apparently they’ve never seen Dr. Ryan Maue’s ACE graph discussed recently in the GRL journal:  “Historical global tropical cyclone inactivity (Editor’s Highlight):

And then there’s the report of a weather station in Germany that got more rain than ever before in 2002, which is just frightening on a decadal old scale isn’t it. Gosh. Loaded dice, that’s the ticket.

Weather records due to climate change: A game with loaded dice

The past decade has been one of unprecedented weather extremes. Scientists of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in Germany argue that the high incidence of extremes is not merely accidental. From the many single events a pattern emerges. At least for extreme rainfall and heat waves the link with human-caused global warming is clear, the scientists show in a new analysis of scientific evidence in the journal Nature Climate Change. Less clear is the link between warming and storms, despite the observed increase in the intensity of hurricanes.

In 2011 alone, the US was hit by 14 extreme weather events which caused damages exceeding one billion dollars each – in several states the months of January to October were the wettest ever recorded. Japan also registered record rainfalls, while the Yangtze river basin in China suffered a record drought. Similar record-breaking events occurred also in previous years. In 2010, Western Russia experienced the hottest summer in centuries, while in Pakistan and Australia record-breaking amounts of rain fell. 2003 saw Europe´s hottest summer in at least half a millennium. And in 2002, the weather station of Zinnwald-Georgenfeld measured more rain in one day than ever before recorded anywhere in Germany – what followed was the worst flooding of the Elbe river for centuries.

“A question of probabilities”

“The question is whether these weather extremes are coincidental or a result of climate change,” says Dim Coumou, lead author of the article. “Global warming can generally not be proven to cause individual extreme events – but in the sum of events the link to climate change becomes clear.” This is what his analysis of data and published studies shows. “It is not a question of yes or no, but a question of probabilities,” Coumou explains. The recent high incidence of weather records is no longer normal, he says.

“It´s like a game with loaded dice,” says Coumou. “A six can appear every now and then, and you never know when it happens. But now it appears much more often, because we have changed the dice.” The past week illustrates this: between March 13th and 19th alone, historical heat records were exceeded in more than a thousand places in North America.

Three pillars: basic physics, statistical analysis and computer simulations

The scientists base their analysis on three pillars: basic physics, statistical analysis and computer simulations. Elementary physical principles already suggest that a warming of the atmosphere leads to more extremes. For example, warm air can hold more moisture until it rains out. Secondly, clear statistical trends can be found in temperature and precipitation data, the scientists explain. And thirdly, detailed computer simulations also confirm the relation between warming and records in both temperature and precipitation.

With warmer ocean temperatures, tropical storms – called typhoons or hurricanes, depending on the region – should increase in intensity but not in number, according to the current state of knowledge. In the past decade, several record-breaking storms occurred, for example hurricane Wilma in 2004. But the dependencies are complex and not yet fully understood. The observed strong increase in the intensity of tropical storms in the North Atlantic between 1980 and 2005, for example, could be caused not just by surface warming but by a cooling of the upper atmosphere. Furthermore, there are questions about the precision and reliability of historic storm data.

Overall, cold extremes decrease with global warming, the scientists found. But this does not compensate for the increase in heat extremes.

Climatic warming can turn an extreme event into a record-breaking event

“Single weather extremes are often related to regional processes, like a blocking high pressure system or natural phenomena like El Niño,” says Stefan Rahmstorf, co-author of the article and chair of the Earth System Analysis department at PIK. “These are complex processes that we are investigating further. But now these processes unfold against the background of climatic warming. That can turn an extreme event into a record-breaking event.”

###

Article: Coumou, D., Rahmstorf, S. (2012): A Decade of Weather Extremes. Nature Climate Change [DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1452]

Weblink to the article once it is published: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE1452

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

Sigh, my rebuttal still stands: Why it seems that severe weather is “getting worse” when the data shows otherwise – a historical perspective

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
pat

in Australia, we now have the full lunatic ravings of the leader of The Greens leader, Bob Brown to ponder!
Bob Brown delivers the 3rd annual Green Oration
Fellow Earthians,
Never before has the Universe unfolded such a flower as our collective human
intelligence, so far as we know.
Nor has such a one-and-only brilliance in the Universe stood at the brink of
extinction, so far as we know.
We people of the Earth exist because our potential was there in the Big
Bang, 13.7 billion years ago, as the Universe exploded into being.
So far, it seems like we are the lone thinkers in this vast, expanding
Universe.
However, recent astronomy tells us that there are trillions of other planets
circling Sunlike stars in the immensity of the Universe, millions of them
friendly to life. So why has no one from elsewhere in the Cosmos contacted
us?…
Surely some people-like animals have evolved elsewhere. Surely we are not, in this crowded reality of countless other similar planets, the only thinking beings to have turned up. Most unlikely! So why isn’t life out there contacting us? Why aren’t the intergalactic phones ringing?
Here is one sobering possibility for our isolation: maybe life has often evolved to intelligence on other planets with biospheres and every time that intelligence, when it became able to alter its environment, did so with catastrophic consequences. Maybe we have had many predecessors in the Cosmos but all have brought about their own downfall….
http://greensmps.org.au/content/news-stories/bob-brown-delivers-3rd-annual-green-oration

The Sage

>In 2011 alone, the US was hit by 14 extreme weather events which caused damages exceeding one billion dollars each
Quietly ignoring the fact that the same weather could have happened 500 years ago but would have gone unrecorded; and had that weather happened 100 years ago, while they might have been recorded, there wouldn’t have been a billion dollars worth of infrastructure in the way. Reports like this only show the good news of how rich we now are as a species, and nothing else.

Ironically, in preparation for my AMS tropical talk ( Abstract: “New normal? Historical context of recent global tropical cyclone inactivity”) in Jacksonville next month, I was updating my graphics and saw that the current 24-month tropical cyclone frequency number of 141 is the record lowest (since at least 1970).
Please see my website for the updated global Tropical Cyclone activity graphics through the end of February 2012. March has only seen 2 tropical cyclones so far, but the South Pacific looks promising for a couple developments during the next week at least according to GFS. The tropical cyclone research community is well aware of the cyclical nature of global tropical cyclone activity & the current 6-year global decline, which reached record low levels only 2-years ago. I have published a paper in GRL last year which discusses this: (Maue 2011, GRL)
http://policlimate.com/tropical/
Global tropical cyclone ACE:

Global tropical cyclone frequency (hurricanes > 64 knots, tropical storms > 34 knots): hurricanes and tropical storms for the entire globe are still very much below average.

http://blog.sme.sk/blog/560/284762/blockingjuly.jpg
Hovemueller diagram, showing frequency and strengths of blocking events, shows no correlation whatsoever with any background warming or whatever. fail.

John Kettlewell

Feels like exhaustion is the tactic; it’s never ending. Perhaps though, it’s merely their Maginot Line.

I tried to get data on lightening discharges as I thought it would give me an idea of NOT how much potential energy was being displaced but how measurement would actually fall in line observed Solar activity indicators.
Is there a black project going on?

I recall last year had the longest period on record without a tropical cyclone developing, nearly 50 days.
Does anyone have a link. Google was no help.
Secondly, clear statistical trends can be found in temperature and precipitation data, the scientists explain.
This kind of deceptive obfuscation from scientists annoys me. If you are arguing that AGW causes more extreme weather events, then tell me about trends in extremes, not trends in averages. Unless its a sound statistical argument, such as, a change of x in the average will result in a y change in the number of extreme events.

Goldie

This is about perception not reality – if we say something often enough the general populace will believe it to be true, even if it isn’t. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

PIK. There’s a surprise.
If the temperature won’t play ball, scare people about biblical weather wrath.
All roads lead to Rio. This is just part of the machine.

M Courtney

Conveniently the BBC seems to have a documetary in it’s Horizon strand that’s all ready to go on this very subject.
It’s to be shown tomorrow http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01f893x
And it’s called “Horizon: Global Wierding”.
The hurricane chasers are there as well.
A spooky coincidence?

Charlie A

From the Wikibloodypedia that does get some things right from time to time:

The Great Storm of 1703 was the most severe storm or natural disaster ever recorded in the southern part of Great Britain. It affected southern England and the English Channel in the Kingdom of Great Britain on the 26-27 November (December 7-8 in the modern calendar).[2]
Observers at the time recorded barometric readings as low as 973 millibars (measured by William Derham in South Essex),[3] but it has been suggested that the storm may have deepened to 950 millibars over the Midlands.
At sea, many ships (many returning from helping the King of Spain fight the French in the War of the Spanish Succession) were wrecked, including HMS Resolution at Pevensey and on the Goodwin Sands, HMS Stirling Castle, HMS Northumberland and HMS Restoration, with about 1,500 seamen killed particularly on the Goodwins. Between 8,000–15,000 lives were lost overall. The first Eddystone Lighthouse was destroyed on 27 November 1703 (Old Style), killing six occupants, including its builder Henry Winstanley. The number of oak trees lost in the New Forest alone was 4,000.
On the Thames, around 700 ships were heaped together in the Pool of London, the section downstream from London Bridge. HMS Vanguard was wrecked at Chatham. HMS Association was blown from Harwich to Gothenburg in Sweden before way could be made back to England.
In London, the lead roofing was blown off Westminster Abbey and Queen Anne had to shelter in a cellar at St. James’s Palace to avoid collapsing chimneys and part of the roof.
There was extensive and prolonged flooding in the West Country, particularly around Bristol. At Wells, Bishop Richard Kidder was killed when two chimneystacks in the palace fell on the bishop and his wife, asleep in bed. This same storm blew in part of the great west window in Wells Cathedral. Major damage occurred to the south-west tower of Llandaff Cathedral at Cardiff. According to Stephen Moss (‘Wild Hares and Hummingbirds, p 32), hundreds of people drowned in flooding on the Somerset Levels, along with thousands of sheep and cattle, and one ship was found 15 miles inland.

One wonders how many ships have been washed 15 miles inland in the last 50 years. People were still talking about The Great Storm 200 years later!

Logicophilosophicus

At last someone – Coumou – has clearly shown that humans are responsible. Read carefully:
“14 extreme weather events… caused damages [sic] exceeding one billion dollars each.”
Humans are definitely responsible for buildings, currency, insurance companies… It’s a fair cop.

We (I) love Ryan Maue. (In the most Platonic sense.)

DonK31

Hurricane Wilma happened in 2004? It must have been a long lived Hurricane, since it went over me in Nov. ’05.

I wonder where they get the increase in hurricane intensity from?
From “An Inconvenient Truth v 1.0” — before Uncle Al removed the slide…

Julian Flood

The Pompous Git says:March 26, 2012 at 12:32 am
quote The Great Storm of 1703 [] Observers at the time recorded barometric readings as low as 973 millibars (measured by William Derham in South Essex),[unquote
I remember 947 mb on a slide at a met briefing in about 1967, Cranwell, Lincs. Windy but not apocalyptically so . Mind you, we didn’t go flying.
JF

If any of you ever lived in an area such as Australia which was hit by the worst floods in half a century only to be followed by the worst cyclone in a nation’s history, all of it in the space of a month, and then watched as the same supposedly once in a lifetime flood “continued unimpeded for virtually two years”; you too might be convinced that a slightly more pro-active spirit was required from those who constantly say there is no climate warming while all the time they do little else but play with themselves as well as viewing …and posting… the same useless charts ….OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN .., reading the same measure of a bottle of water or watching the same barometers raise and lower..
Is that all you think there is to climate warming or is that the only piece of science you can understand?, or at least pretend to understand.
What at the end of the day do you know except for the crap you feed each other? Just reading this one blog alone it seems to me like all of you believe America and Europe are all there is to the entire world .. why don’t you go out there and see for yourself the damage that is occurring world wide; perhaps you haven’t had many stronger cyclones lately but here in OZ we been having just as many as before except now they pack a wallop more powerful than all the BS to be found in this site and I assure you, it would take a lot to beat the crap to be found around here.
There is not one city in our entire country that hasn’t felt the more than incredible and NEVER ENDING effects of Global Warming in all their incredible strengths and all the while guys like you on this site continue to suck your thumbs and saying .. “It ain’t happening, it ain’t happening”.
No kidding, I been reading many of the blogs on this site for over a year now, and I’ve also read many of the comments, and I don’t know what is worse, the dork who runs it or the fools who read the stuff and pretend that they too are climate scientists.
I suppose you all go to your friends on weekends and tell them how busy you all been advising the world that the present situation is not as dangerous as it seems … bla, bla. bla.
The pole has melted, [http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/ . . try this link . . kbmod] the arctic is leaking methane all over the place, the rains have come down by the bucketful for years and the storms … Oh those wonderful storms which obviously none of you have ever lived through .. they sure are strong lately. Just where have you been all this time? Is it possible that you are all hiding under your beds and playing the fiddle while Rome burns to the ground?
Neros … all of you … nothing but Neros.
Wake up to yourselves, get out there and take a look around and stop pretending with yourselves, see the world as it is, people and not as you wish to believe it to be.

Phil Joseph Juliansen

“At least for extreme rainfall and heat waves the link with human-caused global warming is clear, the scientists show in a new analysis of scientific evidence in the journal Nature Climate Change.”
says the article

Last year I had an article here detailing some of the changes in climate over the past few centuries.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/01/a-short-anthology-of-changing-climate/
Since then I have been to the Met office and researched thousands of weather events for my article ‘The long slow thaw’ which compared the climate reconstructions of Michael Mann and Hubert Lamb.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/#more-6022
We seem to have a collective disdain for what our ancestors tell us about the weather of the past, preferring computer models using strnge proxies rather than first hand contemporary accounts by people whose everyday life was fundamemtally affected by the weather.
Perhaps the readers of WUWT need to chip in to a fund in order to provide key players in climate science with some of the classic books that put our climate into the historic perspective many scientists seem to lack.
I nominate;
‘Climate history and the Modern World’ and ‘Historic storms of the North Sea, British Isles and Northwest Europe’ both by Hubert Lamb, whose son incidentally is an MP and has just been given overall responsibility to act as the British Government link with the Met office.
tonyb

cb

So this is (yet another) story about lies, damned lies, and statistics?
It seems that very few people grasp that statistics is, at its core, about correlation, which could be very nicely re-phrased as ‘look-i like-i’, which is to say: “that dog looks a lot like a cat, therefore it IS a cat.” Where the problem is that statistics CANNOT be used, ever, in differentiating between anything at all – it is all pure numbers, and trying to move beyond that limitation is, as far as I can tell, actually irrational.
It is very simple to draw ‘trend-lines’, build ‘distributions’, etc, where MEANING is implied, but where there actually is none. I’m not sure how to explain what I mean properly, and I’m sure there is a proper set of multi-syllable words for it, but let me try:
Take global temp: a trend-line is drawn. What is assumed is that there is an underlying ‘equation’ with T as a variable, and that the trend-line is approximating it. (Alternatively, that is not even assumed… but then you is a dumb-ass, poking a stick into a pile of entrails, while high on crack. I mean, what would be the point?!) But is this true? Piece-wise, highly non-linear, anyone? What should be done, is to properly map out all the underlying (highly non-linear) equations, and fit-determine the variables from there. But of course, that is an impossible goal.
(Um, the above is valid for the real-world, not for such pure-abstracted thought-spaces like psychology. GIGO.)
This is the single greatest flaw in statistics (that I am aware of), namely using raw mathematical equations, and having ZERO idea what the variables are, or what they mean, or even if they have meaning, or if they are linked to ANYTHING real, at all.
(The second greatest flaw is that it takes a statistician to be ABLE to practice statistics: too much mathematical detail – tests, exceptions, conditionals, etc. etc.)
Just because an equation happens to follow a lot of data-points, does NOT mean that its variables, operators, etc have ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING real.
If there is a better description for this, a more formal one, I would really like to know about it. I tried to point out something like this to a committee the other day, and was treated to what one could only call derision. “But of course we can all do statistics, we do it all the time. Statistics is mathematics, it is science, and we have been using it for decades. There is no problem.”

kbray in california

More from Australia:
It’s going to be warmer than we thought…..
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-26/scientists-may-have-underestimated-climate-change/3913288/?site=melbourne
The paper comes just three days after the World Meteorological Organisation published its latest Status of the Global Climate Report, which found that 2011 was a year of climate extremes and the 11th warmest year on record.
The journal has also published a paper which states that extreme weather events over the past decade have increased and were “very likely” caused by man-made global warming.
You will laugh when you read this one. These guys are Clowns.

Christopher Hanley

“……Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in Germany argue that the high incidence of extremes is not merely accidental…..”.
All they have here is a high incidence of non sequiturs.

Otter

The PIK:
basic physics – check
statistical analysis – major FAIL
and computer simulations – compound FAIL, compounded
Ryan Maue – WIN!

handjive

Quote: “It´s like a game with loaded dice,” says Coumou. “A six can appear every now and then, and you never know when it happens.
But now it appears much more often, because we have changed the dice.”
Who will think of the children’s children?
http://www.archaeologydaily.com/news/201203028004/Ancient-Arabic-Manuscripts-Help-Scientists-Reconstruct-Past-Climate.html
Writings from the Islamic Golden Age in 9th or 10th century Iraq revealed unusual weather patterns, say researchers.
Scientists have been able to reconstruct abnormal climate patterns that occurred during the 9th and 10th centuries in Iraq by examining and analyzing ancient manuscripts written by Islamic writers during the Islamic Golden Age.
“Climate information recovered from these ancient sources mainly refers to extreme events which impacted wider society such as droughts and floods,” said Domínguez-Castro.
“However, they also document conditions which were rarely experienced in ancient Baghdad such as hailstorms, the freezing of rivers or even cases of snow.”
260ppm.
How did they do it?
Loaded dice? Climate science? Taxes?

izen

Strawman responses seem to abound.
It is recognised that even a quite large increase in sea surface temperatures has a small effect on hurrican/tropical storm ACTIVITY.
There is some evidence it may increase the intensity of the biggest storms/huricanes, but this is not thought to be a clear or significant increase given present levels of sea surface temperature rise. Model results actually project a decrease intotal storm activity –
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes
“Our regional model projects that Atlantic hurricane and tropical storms are substantially reduced in number, for the average 21st century climate change projected by current models, but have higher rainfall rates, particularly near the storm center. The average intensity of the storms that do occur increases by a few percent (Figure 6), in general agreement with previous studies using other relatively high resolution models, as well as with hurricane potential intensity theory (Emanuel 1987). ….
Therefore, I conclude that despite statistical correlations between SST and Atlantic hurricane activity in recent decades, it is premature to conclude that human activity–and particularly greenhouse warming–has already caused a detectable change in Atlantic hurricane activity. ”
But the substantive positive findings of the research are into the increased probability of extrmeme heatwaves and flooding. The increased temperature and increased moisture levels of the atmosphere make this a simple prediction – and one that has been confirmed by recent events.
perhaps its a symptom of confirmation bias that the clear positive results on the link between global warming and increased heat/rain extremes have been largely ignored here, while the much weaker, and more uncertain claim about hurricanes gets all the attention…

Allan MacRae

The Pompous Git says: March 26, 2012 at 12:32 am
The Great Storm of 1703 was the most severe storm or natural disaster ever recorded in the southern part of Great Britain. It affected southern England and the English Channel in the Kingdom of Great Britain on the 26-27 November (December 7-8 in the modern calendar).[2]
______________________________________________________________________
Interesting Git, that this great storm happened during the depths of the very cold Maunder (Solar) Minimum – not a coincidence, imo.
Extreme storms such as Atlantic hurricanes tend to correlate better with cold rather than warm weather.
As with climate sensitivity feedbacks, the global warming alarmists don’t even have the sign right – but that never stopped them from telling yet another scary story.

Flooding will get worse over the years quite naturally due to river systems silting up. unless maintenance is carried out by dredging which due to high costs gets ignored by governments. The resulting flooding then has a ’cause’ labeled as ‘climate change/global warming’. Flooding in Australia and Pakistan were not the worst on record but with population increase in Pakistan caused increased problems. The Brisbane flood was made worse by local government decisions to open upstream flood gates to relieve rising waters behind a dam thus increasing river flow in the Brisbane river at the height of the rains.

“”PerfectStranger says:
March 26, 2012 at 1:15 am
If any of you ever lived in an area such as Australia which was hit by the worst floods in half a century only to be followed by the worst cyclone in a nation’s history, all of it in the space of a month, and then watched as the same supposedly once in a lifetime flood “continued unimpeded for virtually two years”; you too might be convinced that a slightly more pro-active spirit was required from those who constantly say there is no climate warming while all the time they do little else but play with themselves as well as viewing …and posting… the same useless charts ….OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN .., reading the same measure of a bottle of water or watching the same barometers raise and lower..””
Blah blah blah. I live in Australia mate. You think those floods and Cyclone were some one off event. Get a life mate. The Brisbane floods didn’t reach the records from the 70’s. Haven’t you heard of Cyclone Tracey?? Also you may not be aware of the cyclone which reached down the east coast in ’75. I was in Newcastle at the time and it was pretty wild.
CAGW is a SCAM and YOU have obviously swallowed it hook line and sinker. Hope you enjoy Joolias demise at the next election.

Brian Johnson uk

Perfect Stranger, do you have signs in your rear window [Must be a Prius] that say Baby on Board or similar?
The human desire for drama makes every ‘over the norm’ weather sequence seem like it is worse than ever before. Quick look at history will disprove that very positively.
Do you think your local landscape was shaped by weather non events or perhaps people in the past just attributed it to the Gods whereas now we blame mankind and yet we can’t even redirect a single cloud or stop a 1 MPH wind in its tracks!
Mother Nature is the Boss and if we have any sense we have to live with that fact.

Let me try to get this straight PS.
Are you trying to tell me that If we can get the level of CO₂down to 350.1542 ppm by volume and hold it there, at the cost of several hundred trillions of dollars, we will never ever again have too much rain or too much dry weather? Have I got your statements about right, more or less?
I think WUWT readers aren’t the delusional ones.

Kelvin Vaughan

They were probably frozen to death when their scientists started tampering with their atmosphere!

Kelvin Vaughan

pat says:
March 25, 2012 at 11:39 pm
in Australia, we now have the full lunatic ravings of the leader of The Greens leader, Bob Brown to ponder!
They were probably frozen to death when their scientists started tampering with their atmosphere!

Allan MacRae

At a glance, it appears that Dr. Ryan Maue’s graphs show tropical cyclone energy correlates positively with global temperature.
My 2005 analysis showed a negative correlation, based on data from
“The most intense mainland United States hurricanes, 1851- 2004”
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/NWS-TPC-4.pdf
I’m not claiming to be right here – just curious.
Or is there no correlation of significance?

mfo

“It´s like a game with loaded dice,” says Coumou. “A six can appear every now and then, and you never know when it happens. But now it appears much more often, because we have changed the dice.”
This sounds like the deluded and erroneous mathematics of the man who thinks that if he uses the same lottery numbers every week the probability of winning will increase.

The Perfect Stranger is a perfect example of Warmist Hysteria in action and indeed he/she/it might well be hysterical given that public opinion in Australia is rapidly swinging against the Belief in Global Warming.
Of course what the Perfect Stranger failed to mention was that not a single one of these extreme weather events exceeded (in strengthy, ferocity or degree) many perfectly well documented floods and cyclones in recent history.
A very early explorer to the Brisbane area noted evidence of a flood that exceeded last year’s event by many meters (Source: Australian Bureau of Meterology)
And the recent floods in inland New South Wales have flummoxed ABC reporters who have been repeatedly told… ‘sure they’re bad…but nowhere near as bad as ’74.” !
My favourite example of Warmist Silliness on the part of the ABC was where a young (I was going to say green) Reporter stated that the rainfall was “unprecedented” and so extreme that the river had risen and was spreading over the ‘flood plain’.!!!!!
The Perfect Stranger may also be unsettled because of the very recent decimation…(and here I use the word in its literal sense because only 1 in 10 survived) of the Green Labor alliance during the recent state elections in Queensland.
Labor got into the bed with the Greens and has now got a nasty possibly fatal disease…the public have noticed the brimming rivers and reservoirs, they’ve noticed that it’s been the coolest wettest summer for 60 or more years so expect to hear more shrill, squeals and insults from the likes the Stranger as his ‘shonky’ eco-dream gets swept away in The Perfect Storm!

Mooloo

PerfectStranger says:
If any of you ever lived in an area such as Australia which was hit by the worst floods in half a century only to be followed by the worst cyclone in a nation’s history

You sew the seeds of destroying your argument even in your own lines.
The worst floods in half a century. Meaning, of course, there were worse floods in the past. Before CO2 could be a concern. How did these worse floods occur then, may I ask? Some of them were quite a lot bigger. Pielke Junior covered this quite recently with detailed figures. There is no trend to increased flooding in Australia.
Followed by the “worst” cyclone in terms of damage. Which is a result of the amount of building, not the amount of cyclone.
Finally, even if your case was based on correct values, it is still meaningless.
We all know the world has been warming. It has been doing so for a couple of centuries. What we are being asked to believe is that now we are causing it. That is a different kettle of fish entirely. If we didn’t cause the first 200 years of that warming, I’m blowed if I can see why we should be held responsible for the last 50 years worth!

Existing Arctic – Equator long term relationship points towards a reduced probability of the next decade’s hurricane activity in the subtropical Atlantic.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AHA.htm

R. de Haan

The West step by step is arriving at the wrong side of the Berlin Wall.
And PIK is one of the institutions pushing this process.
PIK should be closed down. Period

Sceptical lefty

Ah … PerfectStranger; you have set up a perfect straw man! The issue on this site, had you bothered to pay attention, is not ‘GW’. It is ‘AGW’ with heavy emphasis on the ‘A’. The AGW proponents morphed their original panic-line to ‘CAGW’ and then, when this seemed to fall into a large hole, changed it again to ‘CC’ (climate change), with the ‘A’ unwritten but strongly implied. This most recent (but probably not final) version may be described as an each-way bet.
Neither this site nor its more intelligent contributors deny the reality of CC. It is conceded that the climate is changing and always has. (How much, in what manner and in which direction are a matter for some debate.) The problem we have is with the evidence for the relevance of anthropogenic factors. No doubt, every time I pass wind I am affecting the climate. This is anthropogenic, so the reality of (A)CC is undeniable. The question is: Do the existence and activities of humanity have a significant, negative effect on global climate?
I suppose that an affirmative answer is possible, but the severely defective evidence so far adduced by the doomsayers does not withstand critical analysis. The omissions, misinterpretations, obfuscations and outright lies do not inspire confidence that the anthropogenic catastrophists may be trusted. Clearly, if the climate is changing with negligible anthropogenic input, the appropriate response is to cope. An adaptive mitigation strategy is the one to adopt. If we wrongly accept the dominance of anthropogenic factors, then expending vast resources to combat these factors will be criminally wasteful.
I cannot imagine that there is not enough counter-evidence, either on this site or in readily available literature, for you to absorb. Like so many of your ilk you have faith. Faith is a wonderful attribute for religious people, but it has no place in science. Faith gives people certainty — no further thinking required. The doubt (or scepticism, if you like) of competent, ethical scientists requires physical demonstrations, testable assertions, falsifiability. The anthropogenic catastrophists have yet to meet a reasonable standard.

Martin Hall

Point of information… a decimation was originally the execution of one man in ten, in a military unit that was judged to have underperformed.
So 90% survived, not 10%.

PerfectStranger says:
March 26, 2012 at 1:15 am
No kidding, I been reading many of the blogs on this site for over a year now, and I’ve also read many of the comments, and I don’t know what is worse, the dork who runs it or the fools who read the stuff and pretend that they too are climate scientists.

I smell a drive-by troll-bot…

RexAlan

To PerfectStranger.
Al I can say is this…
I think your trying to make natural events fit your theory.
In the long term, the Earth will either heat up, or cool down.
Sea levels will rise or fall, or stay much the same.
Continents will move about.
Asteroids may or may not approach the Earth.
There will be fires, floods, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.
As it was, is now, and shall ever shall be.
Amen
PS I live in Australia a land of droughts and flooding rains. reference: “My Country” By Dorothea Mackellar. (Circa 1904)

izen

“I cannot imagine that there is not enough counter-evidence, either on this site or in readily available literature, for you to absorb. Like so many of your ilk you have faith. Faith is a wonderful attribute for religious people, but it has no place in science. Faith gives people certainty — no further thinking required. The doubt (or scepticism, if you like) of competent, ethical scientists requires physical demonstrations, testable assertions, falsifiability. ”
Indeed there is a proliferation of counter-claims and alternative hypothesis that are almost as prolific as the counter-‘evidence’ that attends the subject of biological evolution.
But as in that field all but a handful of the scientyists working in the subject accept the reality of AGW. Over 90% of science graduates understand and agree with the scientific explanation, it is supported by every major scientific body and organisation and is such a mature and well-established branch of the physical sciences that the basics are taught in the standard college textbooks.
Those that do not accept AGW are a small, mostly American, minority predominately uneducated in science. Usually with a political or ideological objection to the POLICY implications of the science rather than any cogent scientific objection to the theory.
You make the claim –
@-“the severely defective evidence so far adduced by the doomsayers does not withstand critical analysis. The omissions, misinterpretations, obfuscations and outright lies do not inspire confidence that the anthropogenic catastrophists may be trusted.”
This is the same claim made about the evidence for evolution, vaccination, 9/11, the Moon landings and the heliocentric solar system by those that hold beliefs contarary to the mainstream view. And as is the case in all those other instances the vast majority of the educated and informed on the subject have understood and adopted the mainstream scientific theory becuase they find that the consilience of the evidence is overwhelming. The claims of flaws, fraud and mistakes are not accepted by the majority of informed, educated individuals and organisations in tthe climate field just as the contrarians are regarded as a crank margin in the other fields of science that are ‘controversial.’
Rejecting the mainstream findings of over a hundred years of science because you dislaike the political implications did not work well for the USSR and Lysenko.
Early mitigation is always cheaper than later adaption.

Chuck L

Warmists never let facts get in the way of their arguments. They deliberately ignore records and accounts of extreme weather in the past (which to them, does not exist prior to 1950) which contradict their claims that the weather was “never” as extreme as it is now. Cherries, anyone?

Brian H

CGN:

The Perfect Stranger may also be unsettled because of the very recent decimation…(and here I use the word in its literal sense because only 1 in 10 survived) of the Green Labor alliance during the recent state elections in Queensland.

Nah. In its literal, original sense, it means reduce BY one-tenth, not TO one-tenth.
Stick with ‘devastation’. Less numerical, but more accurate.
The big worry is, “What madness will Joolya commit in the lame dingo period before her annihilation next year?” Observe the mad flurry of Executive Orders and Administration cat-skinning being perpetrated in the US in advance of November. Trying to make the “changes” that have been wrought irreversible.

Oh no! More pillars! Didn’t we reconfigure some pillars a while back? Or maybe we pilloried them? Can’t remember. Boy, but these Potsdammerputzes love to leap over gobs of faith. Weather: not attributable to CC. But oh, the SUM TOTAL can be. Let’s see. First assertion: zero. Second assertion: 0+0=>0. Nope. Doesn’t add up.

Jason Calley

@ izen “Over 90% of science graduates understand and agree with the scientific explanation, it is supported by every major scientific body and organisation and is such a mature and well-established branch of the physical sciences that the basics are taught in the standard college textbooks.”
Science is not a popularity contest. If Newton, Faraday and Einstein all came back to life and rode a white horse around the countryside proclaiming the truth of CAGW, that would do nothing — nothing! — toward proving its truth. The only question that science cares about is, “is the theory and its predictions supported by the evidence?”
Over and over I see proponents of CAGW repeat your argument that majority belief somehow implies truth. That is a hallmark of poor science, and of unskilled scientists.

John West

PerfectStranger says:
“The pole has melted, the arctic is leaking methane all over the place, the rains have come down by the bucketful for years and the storms … Oh those wonderful storms which obviously none of you have ever lived through .. they sure are strong lately.
What pole has melted? Not the North Pole, nor the South Pole; perhaps you’re speaking of some other pole.
So, GW caused both the rains and the droughts before them?
FYI, I lived through Hugo, Fran, and Floyd. When Fran came through we were in basic survival mode for a week; no electricity, no water, no grocery stores, no gasoline, no nothing. Whatever we didn’t have before the storm hit, we didn’t have for a week after. This was prior to me taking a serious look into GW and I believed the standard meme of AGW, too. If you really are reading WUWT, you’ve taken a good first step. Please, continue. Knowledge of the world and its history is one way see through CAGW paradigm. Once you have knowledge of things like the LIA and the 1970’s Ice Age Scare will you be able to see the Zohnerism inherent in the CAGW meme. You’ll start to notice all the information omitted from their appeals to action. You’ll see for example that temperature graphs starting in the 1800’s should go up naturally and the comparisons of 1979 sea ice extent to 2007 sea ice extent is disingenuous at best. As you look through sources of information that should be unbiased and find source after source telling only a portion of the facts; then you’ll start being a skeptic, too. You’ll start to wonder why don’t they mention this, or why don’t they admit that; that doesn’t fit their “model”. Perhaps, like me, you’ll be very disappointed and saddened by what you see; institutions of which I never thought would engage in propaganda such as NASA and NOAA stooping to Zohnerism. Perhaps then you’ll appreciate WUWT for being here.
Either way, I wish you the best of luck.

mfo

@izen writes-
“Those that do not accept AGW are a small, mostly American, minority predominately uneducated in science. Usually with a political or ideological objection to the POLICY implications of the science rather than any cogent scientific objection to the theory.”
Your presumptions are based on nothing but your own predjudices, just as the presumptions of CAGW are based on the predjudices built in to computer models. You also appear to be using the word ‘concilience’ not in the sense of a ‘unity of knowledge’, but as an alternative to the so called ‘scientific consensus’, which phrase only serves to highlight the scientific illiteracy of its users. As to your childish analogies, you may believe that they are comparable to what they are not, but the truth is they simply are not.