• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climate Change Causing Extreme Weather

Some basics: What’s the Difference Between Weather and Climate?

Climate drives weather, not the other way around. (Climate is the hammer, weather is the nails.)

Most excess heat from warming is stored in the world's oceans.The total internal energy of the whole ocean is more than 1.6 x 10 to the 27th Joule, about 2000 times larger than the total internal energy 9.4 x 10 to the 23rd Joule of the whole atmosphere. ( defined with respect to 0 degrees Kelvin).

1/2° of extra heat, multiplied by the surface area of the oceans (139.4 million mi²) translates to a huge amount of "extra" energy to drive weather events. (A colossal hammer)

Climate changes both location and intensity of weather events. Thus, one area may experience more flooding than usual, while another, drought, so limiting data points to particular locales can be deceiving. (I had this discussing about fires and droughts on another thread. The poster insisted that local data was irrelevant, using State and national data to obscure local changes.)
 
Last edited:
NWRatCon said:
1/2° of extra heat, multiplied by the surface area of the oceans (139.4 million mi²) translates to a huge amount of "extra" energy to drive weather events. (A colossal hammer)
Click to expand...


Half a degree isn't going to warm anything more than a half a degree.
 
calamity said:
Not that this should come as a surprise, but I am sure it will be denied.

Climate change is not only influencing extreme weather events, it's causing them
Click to expand...

If you don't believe the chicken little crap being propagated by buffoons about global warming then you are labeled by them a "denier." If you agree with them you are safe, as long as you agree that if we do not spend trillions of dollars on climate change green energy we will all die within 12 years.
Second year in a row...so, that state of denial must be getting harder and harder to maintain.
Click to expand...
 
Media_Truth said:
"It is not primarily the advance of a major ice
sheet over our farms and cities that we must fear, devastating as this
would be, for such changes take thousands of years to evolve. Rather,
it is persistent changes of the temperature and rainfall in areas com-
mitted to agricultural use, changes in the frost content of Canadian and
Siberian soils, and changes of ocean temperature in areas of high nutri-
ent production, for example, that are of more immediate concern."

I don't see how this disproves anything that BUZZ has said. If anything, it shows that there is much to be concerned about with Climate Change.
Click to expand...

Than you choose not to see!
Here is Buzz's statement, "global cooling scare' was based mostly on a few media articles that were sensationalizing the cooling of that period to sell more magazines."
But the idea that we could be entering another ice age was not sourced from magazines, but the mainstream scientist of the day,
as illustrated by the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES report I cited.
 
Sunsettommy said:
You are embarrassing to read since the Title of article of the BLOG was never ascribed to the paper, in fact if you bothered to click on the link, you would have seen this:



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

To drive home on how poor a reader YOU are, here is the BLOGS title again, read carefully this time:



bolding mine

Obviously NOT the title of a science paper.

Snicker...……………...

YOU are the dishonest one here....
Click to expand...

Another fan of the High Schooler Watts? If you persistently follow his garbage, you will find that he often changes titles of articles. He cherry-picks data. He takes statements out of context. He is undoubtedly on the payroll of the oil industry and the Koch Brothers, with money being funneled through Donor's Trust. I would go to the actual article to demonstrate, but Jack mislinked it to the Israel Times. Sad that you would accept a High Schooler's misinformation over the National Academy of Science, the Royal Academy, NASA, and the IPCC.
 
longview said:
Than you choose not to see!
Here is Buzz's statement, "global cooling scare' was based mostly on a few media articles that were sensationalizing the cooling of that period to sell more magazines."
But the idea that we could be entering another ice age was not sourced from magazines, but the mainstream scientist of the day,
as illustrated by the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES report I cited.
Click to expand...

1970s? So what. The major effects of Climate Change have not yet surfaced. And it's 2019. Atmospheric CO2 continues it's upward trend, atmospheric and ocean temperatures continue their upward trend. Why should I care about an article from the 1970s?
 
Media_Truth said:
1970s? So what. The major effects of Climate Change have not yet surfaced. And it's 2019. Atmospheric CO2 continues it's upward trend, atmospheric and ocean temperatures continue their upward trend. Why should I care about an article from the 1970s?
Click to expand...
The point is that concerns in the 1970 were that an ice age was coming, and not just magazine articles, but Scientific reports issued
by the Government.
 
Media_Truth said:
Thanks for proving my point ---

Watt's title --- Flooding Not Increasing In North America And Europe, New Study Confirms
Real title --- Climate-driven variability in the occurrence of major floods across North America and Europe

You can't trust somebody who resorts to such dishonesty. Undoubtedly he takes things out of context, cherry picks, and other unethical practices.
Click to expand...

The only dishonesty here is your own. The WUWT title fairly represents the paper's conclusion, and that's why the original title and abstract were included in the link.
 
Media_Truth said:
Another fan of the High Schooler Watts? If you persistently follow his garbage, you will find that he often changes titles of articles. He cherry-picks data. He takes statements out of context. He is undoubtedly on the payroll of the oil industry and the Koch Brothers, with money being funneled through Donor's Trust. I would go to the actual article to demonstrate, but Jack mislinked it to the Israel Times. Sad that you would accept a High Schooler's misinformation over the National Academy of Science, the Royal Academy, NASA, and the IPCC.
Click to expand...

You seem determined to keep digging holes since you ignored the facts (that you did NOT dispute) that the BLOG Headline was never from the paper itself, which rational people can see easily. You also made this howler, so divorced from reality you are:

Sad that you would accept a High Schooler's misinformation over the National Academy of Science, the Royal Academy, NASA, and the IPCC.
Click to expand...

Once again here is the paper you keep ignoring:

G.A. Hodgkins et al., Climate-driven variability in the occurrence of major floods across North America and Europe, Journal of Hydrology, Volume 552, September 2017, Pages 704-717

Abstract

Concern over the potential impact of anthropogenic climate change on flooding has led to a proliferation of studies examining past flood trends. Many studies have analysed annual-maximum flow trends but few have quantified changes in major (25–100 year return period) floods, i.e. those that have the greatest societal impacts. Existing major-flood studies used a limited number of very large catchments affected to varying degrees by alterations such as reservoirs and urbanisation. In the current study, trends in major-flood occurrence from 1961 to 2010 and from 1931 to 2010 were assessed using a very large dataset (>1200 gauges) of diverse catchments from North America and Europe; only minimally altered catchments were used, to focus on climate-driven changes rather than changes due to catchment alterations. Trend testing of major floods was based on counting the number of exceedances of a given flood threshold within a group of gauges. Evidence for significant trends varied between groups of gauges that were defined by catchment size, location, climate, flood threshold and period of record, indicating that generalizations about flood trends across large domains or a diversity of catchment types are ungrounded. Overall, the number of significant trends in major-flood occurrence across North America and Europe was approximately the number expected due to chance alone. Changes over time in the occurrence of major floods were dominated by multidecadal variability rather than by long-term trends. There were more than three times as many significant relationships between major-flood occurrence and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation than significant long-term trends. […]
Click to expand...

The paper is PUBLISHED in, Journal of Hydrology, all Watts did was bring it up on his blog. Somehow that bothers you so much, how come? is it because the papers is an affront to your climate cult beliefs?

Your always unsupported and boring attacks on him is typical of climate cultists who wants to prevent or deflect debate:

He is undoubtedly on the payroll of the oil industry and the Koch Brothers, with money being funneled through Donor's Trust.
Click to expand...

He is on record saying this, from his FAQ page

Q. Are you paid to blog?

A. No. There are some people who have this idea that because I put so much effort into WUWT that I must be on somebody’s payroll and that my stories are “pay for play” or something like that. Nothing could be further from the truth. Being a broadcaster, the surest way to kill a career is to run afoul of the FCC’s payola laws, and because I see blogging as just another style of broadcasting, I’d never consider “pay for play”. Besides, most people don’t know how I abhor “dead air”, be it on radio, TV, or in blogging. I’m self motivated to keep it interesting and fresh. Plus, WUWT’s reach gives me a larger sense of purpose.

WUWT doesn’t run articles for hire, it is not nor has it ever been on the payroll of any company or organization (and that goes for me personally too), and it is managed mostly by myself with the help of about half a dozen volunteer moderators.
Click to expand...

You are afraid of him, that is why you have irrational anger against him.
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile you promote this lie:

Another fan of the High Schooler Watts? If you persistently follow his garbage, you will find that he often changes titles of articles.
Click to expand...

I am one of his Moderators there, who knows this is a lie, why are you doing it?

You don't have to visit the blog or post a comment (You are too cowardly to try), but lying about him and his blog, elsewhere shows your irrational fear of his presentations, of his support base and of him personally. Some of the blog articles are from other people who write a guest essay or based on Newspaper articles. Some of them are or were established professors in Universities, such as Dr. Ball, Dr. Meier, Dr. Crockford and more.

People who do what you do are enemies of free speech and fair play in debates, you have regularly tried to squelch debates with your lies and personal attacks on blogs, science journals, news sources and more. Were you trained to fear and hate people who have a different viewpoint of the various science topics than you?

In any case your juvenile statements about those you whom don't agree with, damages your position, your credibility and your integrity.

The drive for the truth isn't evident from you...………..

:2wave:
 
Last edited:
Media_Truth said:
Another fan of the High Schooler Watts? If you persistently follow his garbage, you will find that he often changes titles of articles. He cherry-picks data. He takes statements out of context. He is undoubtedly on the payroll of the oil industry and the Koch Brothers, with money being funneled through Donor's Trust. I would go to the actual article to demonstrate, but Jack mislinked it to the Israel Times. Sad that you would accept a High Schooler's misinformation over the National Academy of Science, the Royal Academy, NASA, and the IPCC.
Click to expand...

1. It is simply a lie to claim oil industry or Koch funding for WUWT.
2. Israel Times???
 
Jack Hays said:
1. It is simply a lie to claim oil industry or Koch funding for WUWT.
2. Israel Times???
Click to expand...

When people promote demonstrable lies and personal attacks in place of mature debate, it is to create division and deflection from the topic or published science paper at hand. They don't want a real debate, just fog and deflection in order to prop up their own house of cards climate belief system, which they must know is very weak.
 
Sunsettommy said:
When people promote demonstrable lies and personal attacks in place of mature debate, it is to create division and deflection from the topic or published science paper at hand. They don't want a real debate, just fog and deflection in order to prop up their own house of cards climate belief system, which they must know is very weak.
Click to expand...

I think, i could be wrong, but the point of the initial complaint was that the poster mischaracterized the substance of the article to pursue a preconceived agenda, thus exaggerating the import of the underlying data. MSM editors do it all the time with headlines that relate only tangentially to the substance of the articles. It is worse with viewpoint media. Science journalism is rife with misperception and exaggeration. The blogger's headline was exactly that - a misapplication of underlying data to make a statement that the initial paper writer didn't reach.
 
NWRatCon said:
I think, i could be wrong, but the point of the initial complaint was that the poster mischaracterized the substance of the article to pursue a preconceived agenda, thus exaggerating the import of the underlying data. MSM editors do it all the time with headlines that relate only tangentially to the substance of the articles. It is worse with viewpoint media. Science journalism is rife with misperception and exaggeration. The blogger's headline was exactly that - a misapplication of underlying data to make a statement that the initial paper writer didn't reach.
Click to expand...

Your recollection is correct, but the point is the complaint was without merit. The WUWT title fairly represents the paper's conclusion, and that's why the original title and abstract were included in the link.
 
NWRatCon said:
I think, i could be wrong, but the point of the initial complaint was that the poster mischaracterized the substance of the article to pursue a preconceived agenda, thus exaggerating the import of the underlying data. MSM editors do it all the time with headlines that relate only tangentially to the substance of the articles. It is worse with viewpoint media. Science journalism is rife with misperception and exaggeration. The blogger's headline was exactly that - a misapplication of underlying data to make a statement that the initial paper writer didn't reach.
Click to expand...

Now this is a fine post you made, thank you.

I agree that Media and people create headlines that can be misleading, but Anthony actually posted the abstract and the conclusion of a paper that DOES give support to the headline:

The very first quote from the paper is this, that supports the Headline:

“The results of this study, for North America and Europe, provide a firmer foundation and support the conclusion of the IPCC that compelling evidence for increased flooding at a global scale is lacking.”
Click to expand...

Taken out of quote?

I don't see it,

….The results of this study, for North America and Europe, provide a firmer foundation and support the conclusion of the IPCC (Hartmann et al., 2013) that compelling evidence for increased flooding at a global scale is lacking. Generalizations about climate-driven changes in floods across large domains or diverse catchment types that are based upon small samples of catchments or short periods of record are ungrounded. Networks of streamflow data from minimally altered catchments will provide an essential foundation for future efforts to understand the complex temporal and spatial dynamics of major floods.
Click to expand...

Then we have this from the paper that also doesn't contradict Watts Headline:

screenshot-2017-08-30-11-28-08-768x900.jpg

Fig. 2. Monthly distribution of floods with ≥25 year return periods for 1204 study gauges from 1961 to 2010, by major Köppen-Geiger climate for North America on the left in green and Europe on the right in blue. Monthly values are percent of total number of floods with > 25 year return periods for each Köppen-Geiger climate.
 
When discussing climate science, I think it is imperative to be consistent with the scales of measure and data points to avoid making wrong assumptions or misapply data. I have not read either the blog post or the underlying study, but I perceived that the argument was over whether the blog accurately portrayed the study. On reflection, I did not make clear that I was not actually taking a position. I was just trying to clarify the argument.

After further reading, however, it appears to me (from the abstract) that the study was using available data from North American and European sources to compare with "global experience," assuming that global flooding has generally not increased. There is, I think, a flaw in that approach - it is this: isolated regional data does not accurately extend to the global experience. I believe that the only conclusion the original author was making was that the NA and Euro data is consistent with a previous IPCC conclusion that overall flooding had not increased, not addressing either location or severity? That does not, however, demonstrate that the original supposition was correct (the blogger's apparent position), only that this data is consistent with the hypothesis. In that regard, it appears accurate to say that the blogger's headline may exaggerate the study conclusion.

I don't know the blog author or the study author, so I offer no judgment on that dispute.
 
longview said:
That is a myth alarmist tell themselves, there was a real report
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
UNITED STATES COMMITTEE FOR THE
GLOBAL ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH PROGRAM
National Research Council
UNDERSTANDING CLIMATIC CHANGE
A Program for Action

Full text of "Understanding climatic change"
Click to expand...

Damn longview... you have taken this quote completely out of context and misrepresented what the report is all about!!

It is, in no way what so ever, a prediction of a cooling planet and is actually about how science needs to advance to be able to predict what the climate is likely to do.

You are wrong yet again!

Seriously long... you should just quit quoting science because you get your facts wrong so often that you can't be trusted to get anything right.
 
Lord of Planar said:
There wasn't a push for concern with billions and billions dollars worth of climate agenda money driving one sided research back then, like now.
Click to expand...

Yeah... probably because there were not many scientists or very much significant research suggesting that the Earth was going to see significant cooling.

Unlike now where the exact opposite is true.
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-’80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific ‘Consensus’[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 13. September 2016
Beginning in 2003, software engineer William Connolley quietly removed the highly inconvenient references to the global cooling scare of the 1970s from Wikipedia, the world’s most influential and accessed informational source. It had to be done. Too many skeptics were (correctly) pointing out that the scientific “consensus” during the 1960s and 1970s was that the […]

Posted in Climate Politics, Cooling/Temperature, Hockey Team, Media / Bias | 152 Responses

[h=2]285 Papers 70s Cooling 2[/h]PART 2 PART 1 HERE PART 3 HERE —– 96. Paterson, 1977 Figure 4a shows 10-yr mean [temperature] values from AD 1200 to present [Arctic Canada]. Prominent features are brief warm periods with peaks at 1240 and 1380, cold peaks at 1430, 1520, and 1560, the ‘Little Ice Age’ continuously cold from 1680 to 1730 […]


[h=2]285 Papers 70s Cooling 1[/h]Beginning in 2003, software engineer William Connolley quietly removed the highly inconvenient references to the global cooling scare of the 1970s from Wikipedia, the world’s most influential and accessed informational source. It had to be done. Too many skeptics were (correctly) pointing out that the scientific “consensus” during the 1960s and 1970s was that the […]
Click to expand...

Really Jack?? Just another cut and paste with absolutely not a single word of your own? And it is from that hack website Notrickszone.

:lamo

Sorry, Jack but I have seen plenty of Notrickszone lists like this before and they are all a ****ing joke. I guaranty that the vast majority of the examples they give are only because they acknowledge the cooling of the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Now if you want to go through that list and pick out and cite the examples of studies that predict significant cooling and constitute a part of the "global cooling scare" then go for it. I'm not wasting my time on stuff you are too lazy to even read.
 
Buzz said:
Really Jack?? Just another cut and paste with absolutely not a single word of your own? And it is from that hack website Notrickszone.

:lamo

Sorry, Jack but I have seen plenty of Notrickszone lists like this before and they are all a ****ing joke. I guaranty that the vast majority of the examples they give are only because they acknowledge the cooling of the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Now if you want to go through that list and pick out and cite the examples of studies that predict significant cooling and constitute a part of the "global cooling scare" then go for it. I'm not wasting my time on stuff you are too lazy to even read.
Click to expand...

I really don't care what you will or won't do. Nor does your guarantee have any credibility at all. You've already demonstrated you fear the data. The only joke here is your pretension to know something about the topic at hand.
I'm tired of trying to remedy your ignorance.
 
Jack Hays said:
I really don't care what you will or won't do. Nor does your guarantee have any credibility at all. You've already demonstrated you fear the data. The only joke here is your pretension to know something about the topic at hand.
I'm tired of trying to remedy your ignorance.
Click to expand...

Damn!! A admittion that you don't care what you force other people to do to fact check your cut and pastes, then nothing but a bunch of false personal attacks that do nothing to back yourself up on anything at all.

:(
 
Buzz said:
Damn!! A admittion that you don't care what you force other people to do to fact check your cut and pastes, then nothing but a bunch of false personal attacks that do nothing to back yourself up on anything at all.

:(
Click to expand...

Your failure to comprehend is complete.

I decided some time ago that the lack of honesty and/or interest in a real discussion among AGW advocates would preclude any actual exchange. I therefore set myself the task to establish a record of evidence presented, so that when the AGW narrative collapses you will not be able to say you had doubts all along. You will be forced to own your error.

And that collapse is near. There are three topic areas where the AGW narrative has been (and will continue to be) undermined.
1. There is mounting evidence for low ECS and TCR, incompatible with AGW.
2. It's clear now that solar climate influence is significantly greater than has been admitted to date by the IPCC.
3. Cooling began in 2016 and will continue indefinitely, with an occasional El Nino pause.

So please, continue to take refuge in your know-nothing whining about "cut and pastes" -- nothing really but a showcase for your aversion to substance. I look forward to reminding you of this exchange one day.
 
Buzz said:
Damn!! A admittion that you don't care what you force other people to do to fact check your cut and pastes, then nothing but a bunch of false personal attacks that do nothing to back yourself up on anything at all.

:(
Click to expand...

And btw, if I post it then I'm saying I think it's valid. If you want to "fact check" then that's entirely your responsibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom