(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.
Here are the full 33 threats. It has to be said not all are contradictory, maybe half. It’s worth a laugh anyway. This is what global warming funding has led to.
E.M.Smith says:
December 8, 2012 at 11:02 pm
Pat Ravasio says:
*
E.M. Smith, thank you so much for what you wrote there.
Anthony? I was glued to E.M. Smith’s response to Pat. Any chance of making it a featured post? Well worth the read and shouldn’t be lost in all the chatter. Certainly sums it up for me and SO explains the situation – a good strong focus of bright BRIGHT light shining into the darkness of AGW.
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?
=================================================================
I’m sure you’ve already been responded to, but…..
Extreme Weather! Burning Fossil Fuels! The Planet is in danger!
Such claims are aimed at naive children who haven’t lived long. The claims are made by not-so-naive oldsters who see a way to make a buck or, most likely, gain control over others.
When have there ever not been storms? History is full of records of “extreme” weather events. Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow? Hitler’s attack on Moscow? The Battle of the Bulge? The Great Dust Bowl? Galveston? The winter hurricane that hit New York? (I forget what it was called.) I’m sure that others could add to the list of “extreme” weather events. (The “Divine Wind? The Spanish Armada?) Some of them changed history.
All of these have two things in common: Man had nothing to do with them occurring and the only thing Man could do was deal with them.
Today, the former is still true but some figured out a way to convince some that Man can actually win a war against weather. How deceitfully arrogant can someone be? Deceitful if they know better. Arrogant if they think that Man has the ability to control the Global Climate.
Dirk and Ray,
Gentlemen, when I read anything by Nasif Nahle ( or any of the sky dragons for that matter ) I immediately become aware that I am reading total garbage.
If you don’t, then I can’t help you.
Pat Ravasio says:
December 8, 2012 at 5:41 pm
“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?”
You changed the topic. The topic was extreme weather events. If you care to rephrase your question and return to the topic I will be happy to answer it for you. In general, the answer will be that I am dedicated to ensuring that future generations understand scientific method so that they can use it to criticize bogus science. Given the behavior of pro-AGW scientists, I do not have the means to ensure that future generations have the same respect for scientists that my generation once had.
There are environmental problems that could be solved by a reduction in the use of fossil fuels. There is too much asphalt near the beach on the east coast of Florida. Driving gasoline to $10 a gallon would solve that problem in a decade or two.
MikeB,
Thanx for your opinion. But I can’t help you there. Comments are either factual, or they are not. It doesn’t matter who made the comment, as you presume.
•
Pat Ravasio: How does it feel to be a total hypocrite? To sell houses requires a lot of driving. I know, I was a real estate broker for many years. Houses, and all they contain, are products of fossil fuels. By selling houses you are causing much more fossil fuel use than the average person. So really, how does it feel to be one of the world’s biggest hypocrites?
Go ahead, try to justify your hypocrisy. I need a laugh.
MikeB says:
Your point 2 is not correct. When a C02 molecule, for example, absorbs radiation at 15 micron, it moves temporarily to a higher energy state. When it reverts to ground state the wavelength of the emitted radiation must be the same as that of the absorbed radiation (aside from Doppler effects etc.). At low altitude the re-emitted radiation will most likely be re-absorbed by another C02 molecule within a distance of 1 metre (95%).
My wording was poor as I was trying to encompass all types of radiation. Your point is true for immediate re-radiation of absorbed radiation. Not true for radiation created by kinetic collisions which can be at many frequencies. And, interestingly enough, there are more collisions at the warmer, denser low altitudes than at higher altitudes.
Do you know the % of radiation absorption events that end up as re-radiation vs. thermalization? Seems like it would be an important number to know for anyone studying our atmosphere. Also, what is the range of frequencies as that would also figure in the ability of the atmosphere to contain the energy. Must be documented somewhere.
Mike B,
I would like to think that I am not beyond help. Perhaps I just need a little enlightenment. Would you please laborate on the meaning of “sky dragons” and why you so readily dismiss Nahle’s paper? I’m not being critical of your position, I would simply like to understand where you are coming from. Thank you in advance.
Well, I confess to being motivated by self interest, as are many others here, I think, My self interests include reliable affordable electricity, reliable access to clean burning gasoline, affordable food supplies, and access to affordable consumer goods. I like being able to log onto the internet, watch television, visit people who live more than a mile away in an afternoon, eat foods when they are out of season, and buy products that are made outside my town. I do not like the idea of growing all my own food or having to “process” it myself, or growing the fibers to weave cloth to make my own clothes. I could go on and on, but you get the idea. Affordable reliable energy is not inconsistent with a clean environment, but lack of affordable reliable energy is usually inconsistent with a clean environment. Look at third world countries.
Correction to my typing: Mike, would you please elaborate…?
Ray says:
December 9, 2012 at 1:43 pm
Mike B,
I would like to think that I am not beyond help. Perhaps I just need a little enlightenment. Would you please laborate on the meaning of “sky dragons” and why you so readily dismiss Nahle’s paper? I’m not being critical of your position, I would simply like to understand where you are coming from. Thank you in advance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
The “sky dragons” are a group of pretend scientists including Nahle, Cotton, Postma, who contend that co2 can’t cause warming of the surface. They go through all sorts of gymnastics to “prove” their position, and this paper is a case in point. A bunch of math based on no supporting observational data followed by conclusions that are not supported by the math. I could as easily count all the trucks and cars on a highway, prove that there are way more trucks than cars, prove that the average speed of trucks is slower than that of cars, and say that this proves that trucks slow down the delivery of goods. Garbage from one end to the other.
Peter Miller says:
December 9, 2012 at 7:59 am
I decided to Google the name Pat Ravasio; I found this on Twitter:
“Working to end #climatechange denial. Hoping American leaders will face the clearly evident fossil fuel induced environmental crisis threatening life on earth.”
So just another typical econut with little idea of reality and no idea of the science.
Kev-in-UK is right to say: “Stop feeding the troll.”
My apologies for doing just that.
*
Actually, I have found this whole thread to be hugely enjoyable. I think Pat has done us a service in opening up the opportunity for so many wonderful responses. Given that Pat is a troll and, clearly by her own words (I’m assuming they are her own words) on Twitter (quoted by Peter Miller above), far from “open-minded”, the considered replies have been incredibly patient and polite. Anyone new here would learn the ropes and be indulged with all the science they ever needed, all in one thread. I love it!
The thing that secured me as a devoted fan to WUWT is not only rational debate but data on the table. Tons of it. The Warmists, on the other hand, SPEAK of their data but cannot SHOW any. Try asking! The closer you look, the more tightly they squirrel it away and tell you (in effect) “No, it’s holy data, only the most Blessed of the Blessed can gaze upon its magnificence,” – that’s if you don’t get the “HOW DARE YOU ASK?!” blast first.
I want to add that E.M. Smith is in top form today, but so many of you are hitting the nail on the head, it is a complete pleasure to read all this. I’m supposed to be getting stuff done, but I am glued to the computer and loving every second of it.
Group hug to the lot of you. 🙂 And thanks, Anthony, I know this thread has gone a bit astray, but it is hugely interesting.
Richard, it is true that a molecule such as C02 can acquire an ‘excited’ state through collisions with other air molecules, but on reverting from that state back to its ground state it will still emit radiation exclusively at around 15 microns. It doesn’t ‘know’ what put it in the ‘excited’ state in the first place, whether it was from a kinetic collision or from absorbing a 15 micron photon.
It is precisely because of the ability of greenhouse gases to acquire energy from non-active molecules such as nitrogen and oxygen that they serve to cool the atmosphere at high altitudes.
If you look at a plot of C02 absorption you will see it has an absorptivity (and thus emissivity) of zero for most of the mid-infrared spectrum. The exceptions being line spectra at 2.7 micron, 4.3 micron and a band between 14 and 16 microns. CO2 also has weak absorption lines around 2 micron which attenuate the incoming solar radiation slightly. C02 can emit only at these wavelengths, irrespective of whether it acquired energy through absorption or via collisions.
Ray,
I think davidmhoffer has answered your question better than I could.
A.D. Everard says:
December 9, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Actually, I have found this whole thread to be hugely enjoyable. I think Pat has done us a service in opening up the opportunity for so many wonderful responses.
——————————-
Spot on A.D., to the point where I’m considering asking her if she is actually funded by the Heartland Institute.
Pat Ravasio says: December 9, 2012 at 12:20 am
Thank you, Roger. That was the most intelligent reply I received all evening. I’ll read up on your points. I am on the fence about nuclear. Some former energy purists, like Stewart Brand have come to this way of thinking because they know it is the easiest path to a manageable C02 level, and they believe there isn’t enough time to fully shift to renewables. They may be right. It is refreshing to read a rational, clear viewpoint from a skeptic — without any insults, name calling or childish bullying behavior. You give me hope!
Shall we take this as confirmation that you cannot provide any “relatively easily to find charts and graphs and numbers to support” your position?
Wow, most of you are so juvenile in your responses, it is obvious you suffer the stress of knowing you hold a losing hand. To be pitched against the prevailing views of 99% of all scientists must be difficult. While I really don’t think most of your responses justify a reply, as some are such transparent obsfuscations (not a oxymoron!) as to be embarrassing for rational thinking adults (who aren’t even scientists) I will consolidate my thoughts here.
The reason why the big oil companies have not switched to the readily tappable energy resources that are clearly available is that they have not figured out a way to meter that energy from the sun, wind, waves, etc. If they could only stick solar power into a pipe and put a meter on it before it reached our homes you can bet we’d have more solar power. Same goes for wind and water. They and you oppose development of such renewable, non polluting alternatives because you know you can’t make the same kind of money you can when you own the pipelines. And money is all that matters. Many of you point to the cost of developing alternative energies. Not one of you has talked about the costs to human health of continuing our enslavement by fossil fuels. Not one of you can justify fracking — you don’t even mention it. Not one of you can explain why the Tar Sands are a good idea. Not one of you has even ventured to talk about how deep water drilling can be made safe. I have not read one reply about the increasing temperature or acidity of our oceans. Not one explanation for why the massive methane releases from the perma frost melt is something to feel good about. You parse it all, by addressing one small sliver at a time (global warming vs climate change, for example) without ever really addressing the big picture.
Since Pat “Patricia” Ravisio has left an ugly comment, and earlier said “I’m open to your input” I thought it worth repeating what she posts on her twitter page (which she provided a link to in comments entered as “Patricia”)
http://twitter.com/patravasio
I think when one “works to end #climatechange denial” it is impossible to have an open mind. She seem like just another zealot spewing talking points who is incapable of looking past headlines. IMHO Folks, I wouldn’t waste a lot of time on her issues as she’s not able to assimilate new information.
philincalifornia says:
December 9, 2012 at 3:04 pm
A.D. Everard says:
December 9, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Actually, I have found this whole thread to be hugely enjoyable. I think Pat has done us a service in opening up the opportunity for so many wonderful responses.
——————————-
Spot on A.D., to the point where I’m considering asking her if she is actually funded by the Heartland Institute.
*
LOL. I wonder if she knows how much she is doing for rational debate, even if not directly joining in?
By the way, Anthony, great idea with the new page. This site is THE place to go for facts on climate and weather.
I keep wanting to tell you: “Power to your pen,” but in this modern era, that’s a bit behind the times, and “Power to your keyboard,” doesn’t have the same ring. But you know what I mean. 🙂
Pat Ravasio says: December 9, 2012 at 12:20 am
“I am on the fence about nuclear. Some former energy purists, like Stewart Brand have come to this way of thinking because they know it is the easiest path to a manageable C02 level, and they believe there isn’t enough time to fully shift to renewables.”
I see, Pat. You require one of your purists to change his mind before you do. Suggests that you cow to “authority”. Actually, from your contributions so far, you seem like a decent type. Why don’t you challenge yourself and do a review of the simple evidence on both sides and see if you are not left wondering about the importance of CO2. I took CAGW for granted not so long ago because it seemed like a reasonable proposition and a cursory look at the data did show that the earth had warmed over the past century by about 0.6C. No thinking sceptic disagrees that it has warmed this amount. However, once you delve into the geological evidence over long periods and historical records over the past few millennia, you come to see that, despite the lack of human industrial activity in the past, there have been extended periods of warmer climate (Scotland even grew wine grapes, the Vikings colonized and farmed in GREENland, etc. etc.) colder climate (the Little Ice Age [LIA] which bottomed in 1700s and began to then slowly warm up over the next couple of centuries (did you know the Thames froze up for a number of winters and they held “Frost Faires” on the ice, painting of children jumping off ledges of ice several feet thick and landing on floes; New York harbour froze up and NYorkers walked across the ice to Staten Island in the early 1800s; the Bosphorus froze over; the Greenlanders had to escape the advancing ice and today, the melting ice is just beginning to reveal ice covered farmsteads; mountain glaciers in Switzerland advanced into the valleys and crushed villages that were many centuries old….). Could it then be that much of the warming of the past Century or so was just natural recovery from the ice age? And what of the past major Ice age that put Canada and the northern US and Europe under 2-3 kilometres of ice? What melted the 50 million cubic kilometres of ice and raised the ocean levels by 120 meters to usher in the Holocene when our race developed and fluorished? Surely it wasn’t the CO2 from the campfires of a population of a few million people.
Pat, have I shaken your faith just a little? Be honest and brave. My next installement will talk about how the coral islands and the river deltas coped with the 120 metres of sea level rise that is unnecessarily worrying thel delta and island folk. Or google the nature and development of deltas and investigate the coral islands and how they can even be there after a 120m rise in sea level.
A.D. Everard says:
December 9, 2012 at 3:50 pm
You could say “Power to your IP” and that would be both clever and sufficient.
I note that Ravisio has declined to respond to my charge of gross hypocrisy. People do not appreciate being scolded by someone who is doing exactly the same thing they are telling others is evil.
Give up all fossil fuel use, Ravisio. Then at least you wan’t be a flaming hypocrite. You will be self-righteous, and freezing cold.☺
Self congratulation is in high order at Yahoo Live Science… agitprop.
http://news.yahoo.com/20-old-report-successfully-predicted-warming-scientists-200858337.html
“The 1990 prediction did require an adjustment, since it did not take into account natural variability — which includes the chaotic nature of weather as well as longer-term natural patterns, such as the El Niño/La Niña cycle.
When Frame and Stone took natural variability into account, they found that the observed warming was consistent with the IPCC’s best estimate for warming.”
Fudge anyone?
davidmhoffer,
Thanks for the reply. I admit that I skimmed past Nahle’s calculations to the conclusions and I posted, foot in mouth, from there. I thought that since the link claimed that the work was “peer reviewed” by the Physics department at his university then it must be correct. After all, you can’t post it on the internet if it isn’t true. (/sarc)
Of course, at the time a little nagging “voice of doubt” in the back of my mind wondered why I had not seen reference to Nahle’s conclusions before now, especially since they would support the arguments needed here to contend with the CAGW crowd. However, he was telling me what I wanted to hear so I ignored the “voice of doubt” and ran with it. I guess I was mislead, and I mislead myself, into believing in much the same way as the CAGW crowd is eager to be mislead into their beliefs. In hindsight, it makes sense now that I hadn’t seen his work referenced here before now because it is false.
So, I’m making a note to myself, again!, that the little “voice of doubt” that I sometimes hear in the back of my mind is trying to tell me that something is wrong with the situation at hand and that, to date, it has a pretty good record of being right. Perhaps if the “voice of doubt” was smacking me in the forehead instead of just whispering in the back of my mind then I would one day learn to listen. Until then…duh!, another embarrassing faux pax on my part!
Once again, thanks for having the patience and for taking the time to set me straight.
Also, to the moderators, thanks for helping with my posting problem. 🙂
Pat Ravasio says:
December 9, 2012 at 3:44 pm
That’s it, Pat. I’m through being accommodating. You have worn out your welcome and have spat in the face of many decent people that have provided responses to you that are far, far more helpful and germane than your positions will ever be. Remember the topic of your original post? It didn’t include all the other topics you’ve asserted we’ve ignored because you never asked about it. You DID, however, hijack this thread from the very beginning.
Therefore, I recommend to the moderators that you be banned for hijacking threads.
I vote no more Pat Ravasio!
It was fun, Pat. You’ve proven yourself to be less than honest. Far, far less. You’ve repeatedly demonstrated behavior that shows YOU are the juvenile one; YOU are the one holding the losing hand. Saul Alinsky tactics don’t work on a world now fully aware of Saul Alinsky.
Go back to your eco cave and survive without fossil fuels (your first rant) and consider your latest rant about evil profits and a lot more as completely bogus: Were “renewable energy” as good as you say, it wouldn’t need the substantial subsidies it currently enjoys. And you lie when stating nobody has considered health issues for I’ve seen it addressed several times above–our current state of medical practice is a function of a civilization built on cheap, abundant fuels and you’ll never see such benefit from windmills and solar. You either don’t take the time to read or your level of comprehension is deplorable.
And you obviously aren’t an engineer or you’d know how duplicitous your arguments have become. Besides, our responsibility is not to educate you, especially when you’ve taken no time or effort to become educated yourself.
So be gone with you. And have a nice day.
Incidentally, the prediction of extremes was part of the scam from the start. Stephen Schneider wrote in the 1974 Margaret Mead book that began the crime:
“There is a further fear that mankind’s industrial and energy production activities may affect the climate and lead to enhanced probabilities of extreme variability. Thus the food-climate crisis could be very near-term and of major significance.”
In the same article he also blamed the then-current cooling trend for extreme droughts in Russia, so he seems to have been hedging his bets on cooling vs warming as the bearer of apocalypse.
Pat Ravasio;
Not one of you has talked about the costs to human health of continuing our enslavement by fossil fuels.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I did and so did others. In addition to failing to present a single fact or reference to support your assertions (and saying over and over again the same thing is just an assertion) you apparently lack reading comprehension skills.