Studies fault warming in much of 2013 wild weather (Update 2)

September 29, 2014 by Seth Borenstein
In this Sept. 29, 2013 file photo, an Indian rickshaw puller sits a top the passenger seat to protect himself during heavy downpour in Allahabad, India. Scientists looking at 16 cases of wild weather around the world last year see the fingerprints of man-made global warming on more than half of them. Researchers found that climate change increased the odds of nine extremes: Heat waves in Australia, Europe, China, Japan and Korea, intense rain in parts of the United States and India, and severe droughts in California and New Zealand. (AP Photo/ Rajesh Kumar Singh, File)

Scientists looking at 16 cases of wild weather around the world last year see the fingerprints of man-made global warming on more than half of them.

Researchers found that climate change increased the odds of nine extremes: Heat waves in Australia, Europe, China, Japan and Korea, intense rain in parts of the United States and India, and severe droughts in California and New Zealand. The California drought, though, comes with an asterisk.

Scientists couldn't find a global warming link to an early South Dakota blizzard, freak storms in Germany and the Pyrenees, heavy rain in Colorado, southern and central Europe, and a cold British spring.

Organized by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, researchers on Monday published 22 studies on 2013 climate extremes in a special edition of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

"It's not ever a single factor that is responsible for the extremes that we see," said NOAA National Climatic Data Center director Tom Karl said. "Natural variability is always part of any extreme climate event."

For years, scientists said they could not attribute single weather events—like a drought, heat wave or storm—to man-made global warming. But with better computer models and new research, in some cases scientists can see how the odds of events increase—or not—because of climate change. Other researchers question the usefulness and accuracy of focusing on single extreme events.

In this Aug. 20, 2014 file photo, a woman takes a walk under the scorching sun in Tokyo. Scientists looking at 16 cases of wild weather around the world last year see the fingerprints of man-made global warming on more than half of them. Researchers found that climate change increased the odds of nine extremes: Heat waves in Australia, Europe, China, Japan and Korea, intense rain in parts of the United States and India, and severe droughts in California and New Zealand. (AP Photo/Eugene Hoshiko, File)

The editors of the 108-page compilation of studies wrote that people and animals tend to be more affected by extreme weather than changes in averages, so they pay attention to it. The public often connects extreme events to climate change, sometimes wrongly, so scientific analysis like this "can help inform the public's understanding of our changing environment."

The report seeks to find how much and how man-made warming has influenced the weather, said NOAA research meteorologist Martin Hoerling, an editor of the report.

The influence on Australia's hottest year in more than a century is glaring, the report's editors said.

"It's almost impossible" to explain Australia's hot 2013 without climate change, said Peter Stott of Britain's meteorology office, another report editor.

The most complicated issue is the California drought, the only extreme that has continued into this year.

Three teams studied that state's record drought in different ways. Two teams couldn't find a link to global warming and water and air temperatures, but the third from Stanford University looked at high pressure patterns in the air and found a connection.

A high pressure system parks over the northern Pacific during California's winters, which is normally when it gets rain. Higher atmospheric pressure usually means less storms and rain. The pressure was so strong last year that study lead author Daniel Swain called it "a ridiculously resilient ridge."

The Stanford team ran computer models with and without man-made warming from the burning of coal, oil and gas. The warming from greenhouse gases showed that the rain-blocking ridge of high pressure was more than three times more likely with man-made factors than without, Swain said.

"The report as a whole is a reflection that more and more future climate extremes around the globe will be attributed to human-caused climate change," said University of Arizona climate scientist Jonathan Overpeck, who wasn't part of the research.

In two extreme events—the British cold spring and the September northern Colorado rains—the report found global warming actually decreased their likelihoods and yet they happened.

Explore further: UN says 2013 extreme events due to warming Earth (Update)

More information: Report: bit.ly/1vqVXvO

Related Stories

UN says 2013 extreme events due to warming Earth (Update)

March 24, 2014

The head of the U.N. weather agency said Monday that recent extreme weather patterns are "consistent" with human-induced climate change, citing key events that wreaked havoc in Asia, Europe, the U.S. and Pacific region last ...

Study links California drought to global warming

April 24, 2014

While researchers have sometimes connected weather extremes to man-made global warming, usually it is not done in real time. Now a study is asserting a link between climate change and both the intensifying California drought ...

Recommended for you

When more women make decisions, the environment wins

March 21, 2019

When more women are involved in group decisions about land management, the group conserves more—particularly when offered financial incentives to do so, according to a new University of Colorado Boulder study published ...

76 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (20) Sep 29, 2014
Is it presumptuous to hope that commentators here not confuse weather with climate & have a base education at high school or university level in respect of important issues such as ?

- Statistical Mechanics
- Comparative Specific Heat
- Mathematics of Calculus

It has been predicted decades ago that increased heat in the (climate) system would result in greater extremes & I would add, perturbation of the vast array of metastable ocean currents. Clearly this affects local weather & despite this, weather prediction is still fairly good & many of us rely upon this & do so without claiming political/government conspiracies but, weather is NOT equal to Climate. Climate encompasses weather, Climate is far more important an issue !

Are there any so called AGW deniers who still imagine the following dramatic increases in CO2 is due (primarily) to volcanoes or some other natural events such as cosmic rays or greater preponderance of sea life ?

http://www.woodfo...o2/every
antigoracle
2.1 / 5 (18) Sep 29, 2014
Scientists couldn't find a global warming link to an early South Dakota blizzard, freak storms in Germany and the Pyrenees, heavy rain in Colorado, southern and central Europe, and a cold British spring.

Because in the AGW Cult if it does not fit their global warming dogma, then it's just weather.
The world has been cooling since the 1930's, only the ignorant AGW Chicken Littles would fall for these lies.
freethinking
2.3 / 5 (18) Sep 29, 2014
Cue the Paid Progressive Government Trolls (PPGT) defending the AGW cult, their Profit Al Gore and their master the Democrats.

How about this, blame any weather that is bad, or good, or normal, on AGW, irrespective of any proof, that way you can say AGW is real. Oh I forgot, AGW cultists and PPGT's they already do this.
Vietvet
3.8 / 5 (17) Sep 29, 2014
"The world has been cooling since the 1930's, only the ignorant AGW Chicken Littles would fall for these lies."

We've got a winner!

Biggest lie of the month.

Dumbest comment of the month.

Most ignorant comment of the month.

Miss antiwearingpanties has pulled off a trifecta.
gkam
2.7 / 5 (23) Sep 29, 2014
Has anyone noticed the folk who deny Climate Change are the same folk who got fooled, suckered by the screams of "WMD!"? And they still get their information from those same sources! It's funny like Jerry Lewis was funny - - - pathetic.

But we are already redrawing the grids, to include more and more alternative sources, from PV to wind to geothermal, almost as if Nature were getting back at the Deniers herself.

Meanwhile, the Deniers are now irrelevant and stuck in tiny fora bleating their objections.
freethinking
2.3 / 5 (16) Sep 29, 2014
gkam, you post like a paid progressive government troll who gets their talking points from the DNC.
Water_Prophet
2.2 / 5 (14) Sep 29, 2014
Now let's look:
If there were effects from CO2 we should expect insulating effects: Passivation of weather and warming. Just like insulating your house. OK analogous to insulating your house.

Yet what do we see, some warming, but more extreme weather. Seems an effect is missing.

Of course deniers are still left in wonderland, a fog where mankind doesn't affect his environment, rather inexplicable. Amazing, termites affect the climate, man is just a harmless animal, minding his own business, not harming a so much as a single leaf on a tree.

Now you tell one.
Shootist
2.3 / 5 (19) Sep 29, 2014
What better way to control the means of production than to scare the plebs into believing in the magic of global warming?

"The polar bears will be fine." - Freeman Dyson

If you're seriously concerned about the environment and carbon emissions, you've got to support nuclear power. If you don't, you aren't serious about the environment, you're just lying to advance another agenda.
Vietvet
3.6 / 5 (14) Sep 29, 2014
"The polar bears will be fine." - Freeman Dyson

Dyson didn't brush is teeth.

Do you brush your's?
runrig
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 30, 2014
Now let's look:
If there were effects from CO2 we should expect insulating effects: Passivation of weather and warming. Just like insulating your house. OK analogous to insulating your house.

Yet what do we see, some warming, but more extreme weather. Seems an effect is missing.

Of course deniers are still left in wonderland, a fog where mankind doesn't affect his environment, rather inexplicable. Amazing, termites affect the climate, man is just a harmless animal, minding his own business, not harming a so much as a single leaf on a tree.

Now you tell one.

Some of that is right water .... however more energy in the climate system does not make it "passive", and most extremes are cause by the weakening of the PJS and consequent higher incidence of "stuck" weather.
phxfreddy
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 30, 2014
Poor ignorant warmists. They frantically and pedantically try to defend their elitist religion.
You poor foolish lefties. Only the scientifically corrupt or illiterate defend the theory.
jscroft
1 / 5 (8) Sep 30, 2014
Has anyone noticed the folk who deny Climate Change are the same folk who got fooled, suckered by the screams of "WMD!"?


Haha just in case anybody still thinks AGW isn't a political creation.
fidh
1 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2014
Political movement based on what could be/become a huge problem. Yet by the time we would actually start suffering from it, just a mention of it would make people doze off due to the nature of it.
The 2 crazed factions are making the situation that much worse as well.
On the other hand, I might as well take the leap into the future and not give a shit already.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 30, 2014
Has anyone noticed the folk who deny Climate Change are the same folk who got fooled, suckered by the screams of "WMD!"?


Haha just in case anybody still thinks AGW isn't a political creation.
@jscroft
actually, it is the ANTI-agw that is the political creation... see here for more details:
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

big business and big oil have a vested interest in making YOU stupid, as well as anyone who will follow you and the political crowd who IGNORES THE SCIENCE

their interest is to make money for their investors and management... your interest is what?
Surely it is NOT to find the TRUTH... because that means you would be FORCED to believe the SCIENCE! which states that AGW is real and man-made

don't believe me? read on! http://phys.org/n...ate.html

rockwolf1000
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2014
On the other hand, I might as well take the leap into the future and not give a shit already.


Perhaps a leap off a bridge or a tower? Would I give a shit?
fidh
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2014
You'd tell me to kill myself for not enjoying the never ending wars over global warming on virtually every article? Go ahead, rate this 1 star as well since I'm not supporting your insane hamster wheel.
Water_Prophet
1.3 / 5 (3) Sep 30, 2014
@runrig,
You have a fair point, it can hardly be considered an accurate approximation for the entire earth at all times. But as a bulk approximation, it weathers well.

And I know you can elaborate further and better than I...
Since weather (and bottom up climate) is a result of heat from the equator transferring eventually to the poles via a temperature/pressure gradient, then lessening this gradient through insulation, should make weather less extreme.

Close enough, is there a better way to put it?
Thanks!
rockwolf1000
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2014
You'd tell me to kill myself for not enjoying the never ending wars over global warming on virtually every article? Go ahead, rate this 1 star as well since I'm not supporting your insane hamster wheel.


Wow. You sure like to make assumptions.

Not every leap from a bridge or a tower would be fatal or even injurious.

https://www.googl...tp%253A%
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2014
"1" it's the new "5."
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (14) Oct 01, 2014
antigoracle proves he is dishonest or very stupid with
The world has been cooling since the 1930's, only the ignorant AGW Chicken Littles would fall for these lies.
You made an earlier posting elsewhere about the 1930's in reference to USA.

It was pointed out to you USA is only 2% of the globe. There are measurements of 'some' lower temperatures in parts of USA.

So to claim (again) its the world, proves you are a complete liar or very stupid. How do you interpret this for the 'globe'. ie NOT USA

http://www.woodfo...rg/notes

Do you understand NOW antigoracle, USA is NOT the world ?

Start with the first graph - it is NOT USA alone.

Have you got an atlas, know how to use google ?

Why Must you easily prove you are a redneck dunderhead ???

Ignorance supreme = antigoracle - unable & unwilling to learn !
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (13) Oct 01, 2014
verkle appears to be caught out making things up (again)
Of course. If the weather is calm and few hurricanes, GW is blamed.
Evidence ?
Blamed by who ?
People like you who have negative faith others will lie & that have no credentials ?
Some twisted comments from someone who's idea of logic is handed down by punishing all of creation "for ever" because of the manipulation of a young woman ?

Isnt that crazy to the max verkle ?

verkle proves again he doesnt understand the relationship between weather & climate
If the weather is wild, GW is blamed. If lots of snow, it's GW. If little snow, again it's GW's fault!
For simple minds verkle you are happy, there are simple associations in continents that are wildly different, primary school stuff.

Some humans however, go beyond sunday school and deal with the complexities of the real world; GHG's, properties of water, chaotic ocean currents, specific heat.

Its called "education" verkle, not faith a punishing deity loves humans.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (10) Oct 01, 2014
Do you understand NOW antigoracle, USA is NOT the world ?

If that is your argument, then you are beyond the level of stupidity to have a conversation with. According to NASA, the US actually cooled while it emitted the most GHGs, and you still believe man made CO2 is responsible for global warming. Come back when you grow a brain.
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (8) Oct 01, 2014
Do you understand NOW antigoracle, USA is NOT the world ?

If that is your argument, then you are beyond the level of stupidity to have a conversation with. According to NASA, the US actually cooled while it emitted the most GHGs, and you still believe man made CO2 is responsible for global warming. Come back when you grow a brain.


Ignoracle thinks CO2 should recognize and obey international borders while at the same time it is miraculously immune to atmospheric currents. How could anyone be that incredibly stupid?

Given that 99.9999% of people are not nearly as stupid as you, most are well beyond your level of stupidity.

No wonder you struggle with conversation so much.

What other simple tasks do you struggle with?

Do better ignoracle.
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2014
Do you understand NOW antigoracle, USA is NOT the world ?

If that is your argument, then you are beyond the level of stupidity to have a conversation with. According to NASA, the US actually cooled while it emitted the most GHGs, and you still believe man made CO2 is responsible for global warming. Come back when you grow a brain.


Are you suggesting Mike_Massen should grow an extra brain for you to use?

If you could be so lucky....
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 01, 2014
Are you suggesting Mike_Massen should grow an extra brain for you to use?

Too bad your mummy did not use her brain, when she left the baby in the hospital and brought home the turd (you).
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2014
Are you suggesting Mike_Massen should grow an extra brain for you to use?

Too bad your mummy did not use her brain, when she left the baby in the hospital and brought home the turd (you).


Still upset that you came from a spore eh? http://en.wikiped...ime_mold

Your pitiful attempts at casting nonsense insults will not change that fact.

And still having difficulty coming up with something original I see. That's because you are so stupid.

Poor you.

Do better ignoracle!
runrig
5 / 5 (9) Oct 01, 2014
Do you understand NOW antigoracle, USA is NOT the world ?

If that is your argument, then you are beyond the level of stupidity to have a conversation with. According to NASA, the US actually cooled while it emitted the most GHGs, and you still believe man made CO2 is responsible for global warming. Come back when you grow a brain.


To repeat for the intellectually challenged....
The USA is NOT the globe. Actually 1/50th of it
CO2 is well mixed and the CO2 emission factor of the USA has ZERO causation with it's temperature compared with the globe as a whole.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (7) Oct 03, 2014
So runrig, is it just CO2 that's well mixed or all emissions?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Oct 03, 2014
@runrig, you need to buy a CO2 meter. CO2 is NOT well mixed! I can see it rise and fall with traffic every morning. In my office, I can tell how many people are in the building!

400ppm out of 1000000ppm is terribly sensitive! Well mixed means nothing when the sources vary with peoples activity. Why do you think they want remote stations?
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 04, 2014
Water_Prophet caught, proves he cannot be a "Physical Chemist" is a Liar with this utterance
..CO2 is NOT well mixed! I can see it rise and fall with traffic every morning. In my office, I can tell how many people are in the building!
Chemists must have grounding in physics & therefore they (who passed university qualifications) SHOULD know depends upon concentration, volume & various distribution dynamics such as diffusion, temperature gradient, wind etc etc

You admitted you are in an office ! ie IN a building near ground level, a DUMB place to make assessments in any relation to atmosphere (shakes head) !

Traffic CO2 is exhausted at above ambient temperature, it rather quickly rises & mixes well with prevailing wind, in only a few hours.

The tiny comparative variations observed within the normal distribution in buildings or of near ground level tell you nothing about the Km plus columns which are integrated into atmospheric distribution assessments !

Pee.Chemist FFS. LOL !
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 04, 2014
(cont)
Water_Prophet proves yet AGAIN he is a Liar in qualifications of "P. Chemistry" with this admission
400ppm out of 1000000ppm is terribly sensitive!
Chemists & especially "Pee" chemists get physics training in instrumentation & safety, ie They know how to look up the various materials safety data sheets.

To make the stupid utterance re 400 out of 10^6 proves you cannot be a physical chemist.

You SHOULD know instruments are designed for a range in measurements of small order of magnitudes & for ambient air measurements for CO2 the upper limit MUST be well below 3% or so for obvious reasons !

Further proof Water_Prophet cannot be a "Physical Chemist" with this blurt
Well mixed means nothing when the sources vary with peoples activity. Why do you think they want remote stations?
You SHOULD have learned in physics as part of the per-requisites to qualify in physical chemistry, timing of measurements is a great separator of signal from noise in non static locales.

Doh
HeloMenelo
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 04, 2014
Do you understand NOW antigoracle, USA is NOT the world ?

If that is your argument, then you are beyond the level of stupidity to have a conversation with. According to NASA, the US actually cooled while it emitted the most GHGs, and you still believe man made CO2 is responsible for global warming. Come back when you grow a brain.


Ignoracle thinks CO2 should recognize and obey international borders while at the same time it is miraculously immune to atmospheric currents. How could anyone be that incredibly stupid?

Given that 99.9999% of people are not nearly as stupid as you, most are well beyond your level of stupidity.

No wonder you struggle with conversation so much.

What other simple tasks do you struggle with?

Do better ignoracle.


O man it's getting good, but 'ol gorilicale have not yet unleashed his inner bufoon yet... i warmed with a cold one on the last 2 comments i gave here: http://phys.org/n...ate.html
HeloMenelo
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 04, 2014
...now i popped the corn and am ready for the next show.... this goon and his clown puppet really ups the dumbness ever so sprightly once again, it seems like he just can't seem to shake this self inflicting humiliation he brings upon himself and his boss that get this.. is actually paying him to make them both look like 2 numbskull buffoons, keep at it gorilicle, we'll rub some shine on the very gooniness you so eagerly express each and every time all the time.... exposing the inner dumbness of you and your "inferior" Can't wait for this clown's next comment... It's better than cable ! :D
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2014
Mike, you funny. I leave my CO2 meter outside sometimes. Sometimes I put it in my home or office. Get this, I can pick it up and move it! Can you imagine! Not only does it count CO2, but it also shows the world you have no hands on laboratory experience.

I am pretty amazed that you discount real time measurements as insignificant, but when you put a CO2 meter on top of a volcano somehow that makes the data germane. I really can watch traffic increase and people arrive in my building with the change in CO2, w/some lag. You should get one, try it.

And you don't understand basic math. Small changes to small numbers have big impact.

I like how you mock me, when you are really talking about the limitations of the meter.

Need I go over all the mistakes you wouldn't have made if you had a sophomore's university education. You invoke physical properties and phenomenon and use them like magic talismans, with the same understanding. When you invoke them, they are non-sequitor.
john_mathon
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 05, 2014
So, let me get this straight. That means the drought in China in 1928 that killed 3,000,000 people and the flood in 1931 that killed 3,700,000 people, the drought in India in 1900 that killed 1,250,000 people, the dust storms in the american southwest in the 1930s, the typhoon in INdia that killed 300,000 in 1970, the drought in Cape Verde in 1920 that killed 24,000 people and dozens more of disasters were all caused by man made climate change? Wait those happened before man had this impact. I'm confused. 53.5 million dead from natural disasters in the first half of the 20th century and only 7.3 million in the second half. Twice as many deadly disasters in the first half of 20th century compared to 2nd half. But man made climate change is killing us isn't it? Disasters are increasing right? That's how we can attribute them to humans. Right? Something doesn't make sense.
john_mathon
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 05, 2014
They say they are using the computer models to calculate the probabilities it is man made. Are these the same computer models that predicted the dry winters and summers in Britain for the last couple years that have been soaking non-stop rain? The same climate models that projected temps would be up 0.5C in the last 20 years when its been flat? The same models that say that natural variability was well understood even though natural variability has erased 18 years of CO2 production? The same models that predict temps will be up 5C in 80 years even though the last 20 went nowhere? The same models that say that El Ninos and La Ninas were figments of our imagination soon to go away? The same models that don't understand how the MWP or LIA happened? Those models?
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 05, 2014
john_mathon laments he's been misled by media with
Twice as many deadly disasters in the first half of 20th century compared to 2nd half. But man made climate change is killing us isn't it? Disasters are increasing right? That's how we can attribute them to humans. Right? Something doesn't make sense.
Media unfortunately is often in a ratings war and even science populist media misinterpret & sometimes to shift audiences etc It is a business,,,

So, get past the propaganda, get a good foundation in physics & in relation to climate the best fundamentals are; statistical mechanics, specific heat, probability & statistics...

Then you will discover the difference between weather & climate & understand humans are changing the heat balance which has any number of unclear effects on climate & local weather.

Note: its not about belief, science should NOT work that way, it's about balance of probabilities in conjunction with fundamentals.

(Good) education is so very important !
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (12) Oct 05, 2014
Water_Prophet proves no understanding with simple speak
And you don't understand basic math. Small changes to small numbers have big impact.
To make statement like this in conjunction with your recent post proves again you have no basic training in physics !

Water_Prophet
..when you are really talking about the limitations of the meter.
Your blurt about 400 re 10^6 proves you don't understand instruments re sensitivity & orders of magnitude in experimental methods.

Water_Prophet
Need I go over all the mistakes you wouldn't have made if you had a sophomore's university education.
Ok spit it out, top 5 please, be smart & get into details ?

Bear in mind I have uni qualifications in physics, chemistry, electronics, metallurgy & recently post graduate degree in food chemistry & microbiology (76-10)

Give it your best shot & this time don't be lame no google, get it from your claimed P.chem training.

Anyone who's done basic physics at uni level does NOT write like you !
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2014
But man made climate change is killing us isn't it? ...Something doesn't make sense
@john_mathon
like Mike says: it is all about ratings and money
if TV/NEWS etc were to show you the reality of the situation, you would see 97 scientists against one idiot who does not believe in AGW, which is the REALITY of it
http://iopscience...4024.pdf

but the news misleads people by adding in equal time for anything against AGW. why do they do that? because it is about making MONEY
see this study: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

it proves that big oil/big business has a vested interest in hiding their anti-science agenda and sowing anti-science BS so that those ignorant of science are swayed into causing the rift that is in the US today

Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 05, 2014
They say they are using the computer models to calculate the probabilities it is man made
@john_m
do your OWN research, and then read the SCIENCE... forget all about the political aspect or even the pop-sci articles that are designed to get attention
read the SCIENCE and always check the references: bit.ly/1vqVXvO

you will find things like this: (regarding models) http://www.skepti...dels.htm
Now... don't just read the blog/article, but also VERIFY the statements with the references provided!
You will find that there is a GREAT DEAL of misinformation regarding climate change, AGW and more out there
Especially from politics and big oil/business
http://arstechnic...nformed/
remember: they have a vested interest in sowing disinformation
http://iopscience.../article

just stick to the science
it will explain what you want to know
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2014
Scientists looking at 16 cases of wild weather around the world last year see the fingerprints of man-made global warming on more than half of them.
No confirmation bias there. Nope.

Funny how that works out, innit?
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2014
Scientists looking at 16 cases of wild weather around the world last year see the fingerprints of man-made global warming on more than half of them.
No confirmation bias there. Nope.

Funny how that works out, innit?


So was confirmation bias for the weather events they said weren't linked to AGW?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2014
Scientists looking at 16 cases of wild weather around the world last year see the fingerprints of man-made global warming on more than half of them.
No confirmation bias there. Nope.

Funny how that works out, innit?
So was confirmation bias for the weather events they said weren't linked to AGW?
That they attribute any single weather event to "man-made global warming" is laughable.

thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 06, 2014
Scientists looking at 16 cases of wild weather around the world last year see the fingerprints of man-made global warming on more than half of them.
No confirmation bias there. Nope.

Funny how that works out, innit?
So was confirmation bias for the weather events they said weren't linked to AGW?
That they attribute any single weather event to "man-made global warming" is laughable.



They don't you dimwit. Instead, they attribute a probability of it being attributed to AGW to the event. Considering you have no clue as to how statistics works, it is no wonder you are in the dark.
HeloMenelo
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 06, 2014
Scientists looking at 16 cases of wild weather around the world last year see the fingerprints of man-made global warming on more than half of them.
No confirmation bias there. Nope.

Funny how that works out, innit?
So was confirmation bias for the weather events they said weren't linked to AGW?
That they attribute any single weather event to "man-made global warming" is laughable.



They don't you dimwit. Instead, they attribute a probability of it being attributed to AGW to the event. Considering you have no clue as to how statistics works, it is no wonder you are in the dark.


Well said TD...
i now get it this clown you just quoted were being mocked for being a bufoon on the side of the road so with the help of someone with a few more brain cells got an account on this site so he can prove he's got more than 4 braincells, however once he opened his mouth he proved himself worthy of the monkey he is...
HeloMenelo
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 06, 2014
...cough...cough.. and i'm sorry to say by how things unfolded, it seems there's only 2 braincells left...
HeloMenelo
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 06, 2014
Water_Prophet proves no understanding with simple speak
And you don't understand basic math. Small changes to small numbers have big impact.
To make statement like this in conjunction with your recent post proves again you have no basic training in physics !

Water_Prophet
..when you are really talking about the limitations of the meter.
Your blurt about 400 re 10^6 proves you don't understand instruments re sensitivity & orders of magnitude in experimental methods.

Water_Prophet
Need I go over all the mistakes you wouldn't have made if you had a sophomore's university education.
Ok spit it out, top 5 please, be smart & get into details ?

Bear in mind I have uni qualifications in physics, chemistry, electronics, metallurgy & recently post graduate degree in food chemistry & microbiology (76-10)

Give it your best shot & this time don't be lame no google, get it from your claimed P.chem training.

Anyone who's done basic physics at uni level does NOT... cont.
HeloMenelo
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 06, 2014
cont....
"Anyone who's done basic physics at uni level does NOT write like you !"

That's correct Mike
But only because that's because of the 2 braincells these clown puppets posses. My suggestion for them would be to try and focus harder on that index finger, it might become one instead of the now two they are seeing, him, gorilicle and bunghole prophet, here now see which one of you three can get it right first !
john_mathon
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2014
Mike Massen, I know this is pointless but I went to MIT, studied math, physics and computer science. I look at the data and number of disasters has gone way down as well as death rates. That's the data. What you are talking about is models and predictions, predictions not founded on solid science that is proven but on conjectures and fitting data to curves which means nothing if the science behind them is bogus. Models can be made to show anything. The failures of the models for 18 years is a basic refutation of the models. They can't be trusted if they can't predict the first new data. Even if temps had gone as models had shown it would still leave doubt if they would continue but at least that would leave them in good standing. What you "advocates" don't seem to understand is that 20 years of failure is failure. Something is seriously wrong with these models. I think any honest scientist would have to admit that at least their relevance is in serious question, therefore ...
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 06, 2014
As the world defies the AGW Cult's wishes of doom and gloom, they just make it up.
http://wattsupwit...y-do-it/
HeloMenelo
3 / 5 (14) Oct 06, 2014
As the world defies the AGW Cult's wishes of doom and gloom, they just make it up.
http://wattsupwit...y-do-it/


Meanwhile AGW deniers, desperately seeks to falsify the cold hard truth that Big oil is destroying the earth without conscious. But that of course is self evident by the number of real scientists that provided countless of empirical evidence, of course all denier claims is based upon hot hair, as evident by the link gorillicale just posted.

I was wrong, there must just be just 1 braincell left in that hollow skull of yours. Focus on that index finger... focus.. you can do it.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 06, 2014
That they attribute any single weather event to "man-made global warming" is laughable
@uba
you are just anti-agw and you deny the science
Perhaps because of this?
http://arstechnic...nformed/

What is it about the SCIENCE that you don't like? because there is an overwhelming amout of SCIENCE out there supporting AGW
I just want to highlight this illuminating infographic by James Powell in which, based on more than 2000 peer-reviewed publications, he counts the number of authors from November, 2012 to December, 2013 who explicitly deny global warming (that is, who propose a fundamentally different reason for temperature rise than anthropogenic CO2). The number is exactly one.
http://blogs.scie...sagrees/
john_mathon
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2014
I don't understand this hatred for big oil, cigarette companies, etc... You do understand that they simply make money because we use their products. You can say all you want about addiction but the fact is that we are using it and there is quite an effort to get people to stop using it but it is difficult and the people see some advantage to doing it whatever it is. The blame is clearly on us not these companies. When Al Gore has 4 mansions around the country 10,000sqft each and flies on private jets and heats his pool for 800/month while telling us how evil we are and the oil companies are I do find myself being a little skeptical. If he really thought this was going to destroy animals, plants, ourselves how could he or others do those things? Obviously he doesn't really believe these things. Why should we?
john_mathon
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2014
captian. THere is evidence that AGW is happening. The question is if it is significant. Just because there is some effect doesn't mean we respond as if the world was going to end. During the 350 years since the LIA the temperatures have been rising. During this period life on earth and the human race has been doing great. The question is why is the current temperature the perfect temperature? It seems unlikely apriori that we happen to be at the exact perfect temperature and especially since temps have been rising and things are going well that we have reached the local maximum benefit. The IPCC itself admits life and humans will benefit from another 1-2C. They say it's after 2 degrees that the tipping point occurs. However, IMO that isn't nearly proven either. The climactic maximum 5,000 years ago was several degrees warmer and that is when humans felt secure, happy enough to settle down to start civilization several places in the world simultaneously.
john_mathon
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2014
At current rates we probably won't see 2C change. Therefore even by the IPCCs analysis there is NO negative overall effect from AGW. In fact it's positive. Since the IPCCs studies are flawed in many ways this isn't proof that its benign but common sense seems to exclude many of the negative scenarios they thought might happen and others have been disproved. So, the point is that AGW at some level is not really the question. The question is really if the effect is worth the words on this paper or might even be positive.
HeloMenelo
3 / 5 (12) Oct 06, 2014
I don't understand this hatred for big oil, cigarette companies, etc... You do understand that they simply make money because we use their products. You can say all you want about addiction but the fact is that we are using it and there is quite an effort to get people to stop using it but it is difficult and the people see some advantage to doing it whatever it is.


O... boy where's the facepalm smiley when you need it, Big oil plays monopoly but in a far deeper sinister way, people have to use their product because competition is NOT allowed nor promoted under their rule, and that for one as clear as day for decades, for two the comparison to al Gore is laughable when Big Fat and ever so Very Filthy oil, does nothing to promote the countless of breakthroughs in clean energy production exaggerating the already devastating effects of the world having to rely on oil for energy.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Oct 06, 2014
@HeloMenelo:
Just to expand on what you said, have you noticed food, gas, property, etc. have all gone up dramatically in the last say 10 years, but the price of autos has remained essentially constant. Perhaps, instead of constan, I should say the price of autos has allowed them to be available?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2014
Bear in mind I have uni qualifications in physics, chemistry, electronics, metallurgy & recently post graduate degree in food chemistry & microbiology (76-10)
-Mike_M

@Mike, reviewing your posts citing... "thermodynamics, pressure, chaos, concentration, volume & various distribution dynamics such as diffusion, temperature gradient, wind etc etc.," as references to my post, make it sadly apparent that you do not, you've used all of them quite profoundly out of place.

That is, sadly more than 5. You have eclipsed Maggnus in your number of errors, and that my friend, is truly amazing. I would hope that much wrongness in one place should violate the Pauli Exclusion Principle, it must be wrongness is a Boson. I am afraid that the university system has failed you, or should have.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 07, 2014
You do understand that they simply make money because we use their products
@John
Yes, I do
but they also intentionally create havoc by hiding funds into secretive accounts that can't be traced back to them in order to undermine SCIENCE... the STUDY
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

read this article too
http://phys.org/n...ate.html

Not saying that 100% of all scientists are angels either... but in the face of worlwide consensus due to everyone else investigating the issue but seemingly coming to the SAME conclusions, there MUST be some commonality... deniers think it is conspiracy:
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 07, 2014
When Al Gore
@John
Al Gore is an idiot, and that is a strawman argument
rich people like their crap
if you were Bill Gates rich, would YOU fly coach on a South American puddle-jumper overloaded with goats, chickens and unwashed cadavers?
Hyperbole... but relevant
Just because there is some effect doesn't mean we respond as if the world was going to end
So your beef is with the "doom-and-gloom crowd.
ok
fine
but if you are going to post
At current rates we probably won't see 2C change
then back it up with a study, like this
http://www.climat...l-levels

prove your point
when you push your point with, say, studies from reputable peer reviewed sources, then it will be easier to understand you as well as discuss things with you

That way, when people disagree, they can point to specifics and say: looky here
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 07, 2014
Obviously he doesn't really believe these things
@john
i (personally) don't care one whit for gore... i believe in the SCIENCE... that is it
not some political entity
don't be a sheep
http://arstechnic...nformed/

At current rates we probably won't see 2C change
based upon what info?
In recent years, carbon dioxide concentrations have been growing at a rate of 2 to 2.5 ppm each year. At those rates, it would take 60-80 years to double the pre-industrial level of 275 ppm. However, the rate of increase over the past half century has not been steady; it's been accelerating by about 0.5 ppm per year per decade. If the acceleration continues into the future, then doubled pre-industrial carbon dioxide concentrations will be reached in about 50 years.
http://www.climat...l-levels

read that last few lines
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2014
Scientists looking at 16 cases of wild weather around the world last year see the fingerprints of man-made global warming on more than half of them.
No confirmation bias there. Nope.

Funny how that works out, innit?
So was confirmation bias for the weather events they said weren't linked to AGW?
That they attribute any single weather event to "man-made global warming" is laughable.
They don't you dimwit. Instead, they attribute a probability of it being attributed to AGW to the event. Considering you have no clue as to how statistics works, it is no wonder you are in the dark.
Said the moron that didn't even know sea ice and land ice have different melting points.

Statistics are easily and often unconsciously manipulated as a result of confirmation bias.

http://phys.org/n...aud.html

Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 07, 2014
Water_Prophet attempts to defend his position but fails with
@Mike, reviewing your posts citing... "thermodynamics, pressure, chaos, concentration, volume & various distribution dynamics such as diffusion, temperature gradient, wind etc etc.," as references to my post, make it sadly apparent that you do not, you've used all of them quite profoundly out of place.
You should be embarrassed, all you have done is list technical terms WITHOUT context & in no relation to the description of phenomena where those terms are completely appropriate. My notes are in relation to your inability to describe/quantify regarding YOUR simplistic interpretations of phenomena which again PROVE you have no training in physics at uni level.

Also if you did have uni physics training you would be able to articulate easily & efficiently those issues in context. So lets start with one, to keep it so simple at your level:-

My note on just WHY your comment re CO2 of 400ppm vs 10^6 sensitivity is rubbish ?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2014
That they attribute any single weather event to "man-made global warming" is laughable
@uba
you are just anti-agw and you deny the science
Ha! You're denying the science!

"global warming
n.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."

The science: http://woodfortre....7/trend


Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 07, 2014
ubavontuba also comes across as untrained & unable to quantify & show us any proof of understanding with this blurt
Said the moron that didn't even know sea ice and land ice have different melting points.
So where is the quantification, the dependencies, re variations in salinity, differential in temperature of melting points, affect on specific heats etc ?

ubavontuba didn't know what he admitted with
Statistics are easily and often unconsciously manipulated as a result of confirmation bias.
Versus conscious bias by so many that cannot understand basic physics of GHG's, statistical mechanics, differential specific heats of oceans vs atmosphere, combinatorial complexity, etc.

ubavontuba strategy is relatively consistent picks at issues & doesn't increase understanding by quantification. Where is the hypothesis conjunctive with your comment - something that is convergent with understanding - NO ?

Fundamental Physics !
"How can adding a GHG NOT increase thermal resistivity?"
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 07, 2014
Whoever tried to claim the oceans are not part of the global climate made a monumental stuff-up, because the uneducated seize upon this, ready to easily fall into confirmational bias & ignore the oceans in its huge capacity to absorb heat & thus diverge mature discussion to name-calling, cause argument & not result in any increase in understanding at all - only provoke attacks as ubavontuba is so quick to do...!

I see your most recent link posits "RSS MSU lower trop. global mean" totally ignoring period prior to 1996.7. Please see atmospheric pause in relation to oceans capacity to absorb 1000x heat of atmosphere & comment intelligently without name calling ?

Why is ubavontuba so easily led by a badly scripted definition of 'global' that ignores massive ocean thermal sink ?

In respect of land based data for time being, what is your interpretation of the graphical data offered here - which I might add covers a period longer than your narrow attempt:-
http://woodfortrees.org/notes
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2014
Statistics are easily and often unconsciously manipulated as a result of confirmation bias.
@Uba
Yes, you are absolutely right!
cant argue with THAT logic... heck, every country in the world studying climate science has come up with so many different scenarios proving climate science must be wrong, that we should just go bury our heads and hope that people like you can lead us out into the new world order! /sarc/ /hyperbole/ /satire/
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

http://arstechnic...nformed/

Almost forgot: what EXACTLY about those studies was the problem?
the stat's that are easily manipulated by the conspiratorial NWO of climate scientists trying to take over? or was it that you've no real argument and decided that anyone who is pro AGW is an idiot?

or is it because you can't cherry pick the data like woodfortree's?
jscroft
2 / 5 (4) Oct 07, 2014
You know what happens when you feed the trolls? You BECOME one.
rockwolf1000
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2014
@john_mathon

Mike Massen, I know this is pointless but I went to MIT, studied math, physics and computer science.


Perhaps you should consider requesting for a refund for your tuition.
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 07, 2014
john_mathon muttered
..I know this is pointless but I went to MIT, studied math, physics..
Then you SHOULD know FULLY; probability/stats, error bars & variance introduced by measurement issues,you don't speak as if you learned any (useful) "experimental methodology" !

john_mathon
I look at the data and number of disasters has gone way down as well as death rates. That's the data.
No it's not, thats only interpretation ie. what is your metric for a 'disaster' ?

john_mathon
What you are talking about is models and predictions, predictions not founded on solid science that is proven but on conjectures and fitting data to curves which means nothing if the science behind them is bogus.
How bogus are:-

- GHG Thermal properties
- Specific Heat, esp. water's latent heat of fusion
- Measurements of Ocean vs atmospheric heat flow re comparative heat capacity
- Thermal feedback adjusting ocean current's impacting ocean vs atmospheric thermal equilibrium

?

to be continued...
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 07, 2014
john_mathon speaks sheer ignorance
The failures of the models for 18 years is a basic refutation of the models.
Proves you haven't studied enough math to appreciate 'balance of probability' & in relation to discipline of applying 'error bars' in physics .

Instead of claiming qualifications, you concede are pointless, why not instead be smarter & use your claimed foundation to go further applying some claimed training to actually thinking beyond a course static outcome ?

Eg. Many people rely on weather predictions & often are acceptable but, all obviously come with probabilities. We don't stupidly claim they 'failed' when it doesn't rain quite as hard as we expected or there is more thunder than "scattered showers" implies.

Climate models do work & do so with error bars, why, because as you SHOULD know from even basic physics at MIT that models are based on fundamental & irrefutable Science (of matter).

Please be smarter, review your education in Statistical Mechanics !

cont
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 07, 2014
john_mathon claims
Something is seriously wrong with these models.
Since you claim to have studied math & physics then you should have the presence of mind & wherewithal to point to the official models & show precisely where they are "seriously wrong" & according to what metric in terms of what magnitude of error bar acceptance ?

john_mathon is treading dangerous territory re hypocrisy with
I think any honest scientist would have to admit that at least their relevance is in serious question, therefore
Your first have to be honest with yourself:-

- Did you get enough education to understand the fundamentals of climate science ?
- Did you consider, from a Science perspective, why so many educated "accept" climate change ?
- Did you keep up to date from Eg Peer review journals & IPCC reports various reasons why oceans absorbed more heat last ~18 years ?

Re the last above, in conjunction with La Nina, El Nino & properties of melt water - confirmed to be increasing ?
Water_Prophet
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2014
Mike_Masen parthetically attempts to qualify his attempts defame others with...

Statements that defame others.

Why is he even here? If he criticizes people without even a basic knowledge of the vocabulary he is using, what is the use?
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 08, 2014
Water_Prophet proves again he couldn't have studied physics at any uni level with
Why is he even here? If he criticizes people without even a basic knowledge of the vocabulary he is using, what is the use?
Simple Water_Prophet.

If U did have any (even partially) serious physics training at uni level, you would respond with something pointedly technical explaining your unfortunate usage of the phrase, I quote
400ppm out of 1000000ppm is terribly sensitive!
This in itself shows definitively you could NOT have been exposed to physics for graduation in P.chemistry as you DONT understand how the CO2 instrument is designed re orders of.magnitude ie Scale.

You SHOULD know from basic uni physics training 400ppm is NOT "terribly sensitive" AND you add the rubbish term of "1000000ppm" without knowing what it implies.

A million ppm shows what then ?

Caught ;-)

This & your other simpleton speak is not in any way consistent with studying AND qualifying uni physics as U claimed !
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2014
Mike_M, Here is how it is terribly sensitive since you obviously have never worked with dilute solutions:

If I am with 10 feet of my meter it changes the reading. Therefore it is very sensitive, you lose.

If I set out an ensemble of 10 solutions I study and measure their ppm, assuming the reading ARE in ppm, each sample in the ensemble will have a slightly different reading. There will be different numbers of molecules in the solutions, there will be variation in the meter, and presumably other factors.

So where am I caught? In you not understanding that the world is not ideal?

This makes what 10 rather important principals you have no clue of, despite 10 degrees or something?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2014
Mike_Masen parthetically attempts to qualify his attempts defame others with...

Statements that defame others.

Why is he even here? If he criticizes people without even a basic knowledge of the vocabulary he is using, what is the use?
Mike_Massen is, apparently, a chatterbot.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.