Tweet
Originally posted by regexcellent
View Post
-
Which has nothing to do with Zevs intellectual dishonesty in his answer to what Dindin posted."Ceterum censeo Ben esse expellendum." -
So you're attacking easy targets? Yeah picking out the dumbest environmentalists and criticizing them doesn't sound that hard.Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View PostComment
-
Let's review.
1. In 2001, the IPCC predicted more frequent droughts:
Using a transient simulation with the NCAR CCMO GCM at coarse resolution (R15) (Meehl and Washington, 1996), Kothavala (1999) found for northeastern and southeastern Australia that the Palmer Drought Severity Index indicated longer and more severe droughts in the transient simulation at about 2xCO2 conditions than in the control simulation…
A global study by Arnell (1999), using results from an ensemble of four enhanced greenhouse simulations with the HadCM2 GCM and one with HadCM3, show marked decreases in runoff over most of mainland Australia, including a range of decreases in runoff in the Murray-Darling basin in the southeast by the 2050s of about 12-35%...This implies large increases in drought frequency…
2. In 2001, the IPCC also predicts less rainfall in Eastern, Southern Australia and the Western Murray Darling Basin:
Studies by Kothavala (1999) and Arnell (1999)—using results from the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Community Climate Model (CCMO) GCM and the HadCM2 and HadCM3 AOGCMs, respectively—show increases in drought across eastern and southern Australia. Kothavala found that the Palmer Drought Index showed longer and more severe drought in northeastern and southeastern Australia. Arnell (1999) found marked decreases in runoff over most of mainland Australia but some increases over Tasmania. For the Murray-Darling basin, he found decreases in mean flow by the 2050s ranging from about 12 to 35%, with decreases in the magnitude of 10-year maximum and minimum monthly runoff.
3. That prediction was made in 2001. What has happened since then?
Eastern Australia:
Southern Australia:
The Murray-Darling Basin:
3. Actual flooding of cities and towns occurred in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland (most famously Brisbane) between 2007 to date. Let's review a few more predictions made before that all happened.
Tim Flannery--now Australia's Chief Climate Commissioner--in 2007:
Over the past 50 years southern Australia has lost about 20 per cent of its rainfall, and one cause is almost certainly global warming. Similar losses have been experienced in eastern Australia, and although the science is less certain it is probable that global warming is behind these losses too. But by far the most dangerous trend is the decline in the flow of Australian rivers: it has fallen by around 70 per cent in recent decades, so dams no longer fill even when it does rain… I believe the first thing Australians need to do is to stop worrying about “the drought” - which is transient - and start talking about the new climate… Australia is likely to lose its northern rainfall… In Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months.
What happened in 2007?
Storms and strong winds caused widespread damage and flash flooding which resulted in major flooding across eastern Victoria… By 29 June, the Bureau of Meteorology had issued a total of 11 flood warnings across the Gippsland region including four major, five moderate and two minor warnings… A severe storm which began on 7 June brought heavy rains and strong gale forced winds that caused widespread flooding and damage to the Central Coast around Wyong and Gosford, the Hunter including Newcastle, and the Sydney metropolitan areas.
2008?
Flash flooding on Friday February 15, 2008 devastated Mackay when nearly two-thousand homes and businesses were inundated with water… The floodwaters came without warning after a phenomenal deluge
2009?
On 31 January 2009, Tropical Cyclone Ellie caused a rain depression in Far North/Northern Queensland resulting in substantial flooding to townships between Townsville and Cairns… On 6 and 7 February 2009, further heavy rain caused additional flooding to areas already impacted and other areas.
2010?
The eastern states of Australia experienced very high rainfall in the second half of 2010 and early 2011… Subsequent flooding affected Queensland (including Brisbane) in particular, although there were also floods in parts of Victoria and New South Wales.
2011?
Brisbane and Ipswich are bracing for their worst ever floods, with tens of thousands of homes at risk and fears for citizens’ safety, as the toll of dead and missing for the state-wide disaster continues to rise. The banks of the Brisbane River have broken and the flood peak will hit at 4am tomorrow. Already many suburbs are partially submerged, and 20,000 properties are likely to experience complete flooding in Brisbane.
2012?
Communities across inland NSW continue to experience major flooding as water moves south from Queensland.
2013?
RESCUERS have saved a teenage boy from a raging torrent in central Queensland as floodwaters from ex-tropical cyclone Oswald continue to rise… More than 70 roads, including major highways, have been cut by floodwaters across the state since Oswald was downgraded to a storm after crossing the Cape York Peninsula’s west coast on Tuesday.
Here's Australia's current summer dam levels:
By the way, I make no claim to authorship of the above summary. I've basically reformatted a post that had all of these links and quotations. The original post is here--
What's that phrase? "The science is settled.""You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."--General Sir Charles James NapierComment
-
You're right. Let's pick some hard targets.Originally posted by gribbler View Post
Here's environmentalist Barack Obama. As we know, his State of the Union was picked apart by his expert team of fact-checkers so he could present everyone with the Straight Dope.
Here's Obama on American temperatures and the frequency of American natural disasters in his State of the Union:
“Now, it’s true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires and floods, all are now more frequent and more intense,” the president said.
Now, Obama may have been relying on the US Global Change Research Program draft assessment on climate change. Here's what the draft assessment reports:
Infrastructure across the U.S. is being adversely affected by phenomena associated with climate change, including sea level rise, storm surge, heavy downpours, and extreme heat… Floods along the nation’s rivers, inside cities, and on lakes following heavy downpours, prolonged rains, and rapid melting of snowpack are damaging infrastructure in towns and cities, farmlands, and a variety of other places across the nation.
Here's the New York Times reporting on that document:
“Climate change is already affecting the American people,” declares the opening paragraph of the report, issued under the auspices of the Global Change Research Program, which coordinates federally sponsored climate research. “Certain types of weather events have become more frequent and/or intense, including heat waves, heavy downpours, and, in some regions, floods and droughts.”
The US' draft report relies on a report by Hirsch and Ryberg in 2011. That report provides:
The coterminous US is divided into four large regions and stationary bootstrapping is used to evaluate if the patterns of these statistical associations are significantly different from what would be expected under the null hypothesis that flood magnitudes are independent of GM [global mean] CO2. In none of the four regions defined in this study is there strong statistical evidence for flood magnitudes increasing with increasing GMCO2.
In other words, there's nothing to it, bucko.
Or the words of the alarmist IPCC--
There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and frequency of floods at regional scales because the available instrumental records of floods at gauge stations are limited in space and time, and because of confounding effects of changes in land use and engineering. Furthermore, there is low agreement in this evidence, and thus overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of these changes.
In other words? There's nothing to it, bucko.
Original analysis of the above at:
But we're not done yet. The latest draft IPCC report states:
There continues to be a lack of evidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale… Observations to date provide no conclusive and general proof as to how climate change affects flood behaviour.
In other words? There's nothing to it, bucko.
Have droughts become more frequent in the USA as Obama asserts? Here's the IPCC on the "settled science" in its latest draft report:
...in some regions [of the world] droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, central North America...
In other words? There's nothing to it, bucko.
Have climate disasters gotten worse? Here's the IPCC:
There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change...
Has the world warmed? Here's the alarmists at the British MET office (their bureau of meteorology):
Late last year, the British Met Office released data showing no statistically significant warming for 16 years. Another data set from the Remote Sensing Systems Microwave Sounding Units even shows a slight cooling since 1997 though, again, it’s not statistically significant…
The IPCC insists that some jiggling of the temperature data it uses means “all products now show a warming trend since 1998” but it still concedes—and this is the important bit—“none of these are statistically significant”.
None. Other prominent scientists are more upfront.
“The data confirms the existence of a ‘pause’ in the warming,” confirms Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Here's the IPCC Chairman:
THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend.
Good thing Obama isn't one of those crazy hippies:Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought...
The overwhelming judgement of science?
I can almost see the mouth of Obama's Fiery Earth God blowing all the hot air in our direction. Religious fervour explains the global warming hysteria. Science does not.
And for good measure. What did the alarmist British MET Office write in 2008 about what was then a 10 year pause in global warming?
In 2008, Britian’s Met Office noted a 10-year pause, or sharp slowing, in the warming trend and asked this question in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’ annual State of the Climate:
"Do global temperature trends over the last decade falsify climate predictions?"
No, it decided. Global warming models wouldn’t be clearly wrong until the pause lasted 15 years:
Observations indicate that global temperature rise has slowed in the last decade… The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.
How long has it been now? Here are the various temperature measures:
For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years…
For UAH the warming is not significant for over 19 years…
For Hadcrut3 the warming is not significant for over 19 years…
For Hadcrut4 the warming is not significant for over 18 years…
For GISS the warming is not significant for over 17 years...
And once again, hat tip to--
Last edited by Zevico; March 12, 2013, 06:39."You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."--General Sir Charles James NapierComment
Comment