What Do We Think About Climate Change

This is also interesting for you, the USA people.

ATLANTIC BASIN SEASONAL HURRICANE FORECAST FOR 2010
Forecast Parameter and 1950-2000
Climatology (in parentheses)

9 December 2009
Forecast for 2010
Named Storms (NS) (9.6) 11-16
Named Storm Days (NSD) (49.1) 51-75
Hurricanes (H) (5.9) 6-8
Hurricane Days (HD) (24.5) 24-39
Major Hurricanes (MH) (2.3) 3-5
Major Hurricane Days (MHD) (5.0) 6-12
Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) (96.1) 100-162
Net Tropical Cyclone Activity (NTC) (100%) 108-172

PROBABILITIES FOR AT LEAST ONE MAJOR (CATEGORY 3-4-5) HURRICANE LANDFALL ON EACH OF THE FOLLOWING COASTAL AREAS*:
1) Entire U.S. coastline - 64% (average for last century is 52%)
2) U.S. East Coast Including Peninsula Florida - 40% (average for last century is 31%)
3) Gulf Coast from the Florida Panhandle westward to Brownsville - 40% (average for last century is 30%)

PROBABILITY FOR AT LEAST ONE MAJOR (CATEGORY 3-4-5) HURRICANE TRACKING INTO THE CARIBBEAN (10-20°N, 60-88°W)
1) 53% (average for last century is 42%)

*Landfall probabilities are calculated based on the midpoint of our predicted NTC range (e.g., NTC of 140) 3

From: http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Forecasts/2009/dec2009/dec2009.pdf

Note from the authors:
"We issue these forecasts to satisfy the curiosity of the general public and to bring attention to the hurricane problem. There is a curiosity in knowing what the odds are for an active or inactive season next year. One must remember that our forecasts are based on the premise that those global oceanic and atmospheric conditions which preceded comparatively active or inactive hurricane seasons in the past provide meaningful information about similar trends in future seasons. This is not always true for individual seasons. It is also important that the reader appreciate that these seasonal forecasts are based on statistical schemes which, owing to their intrinsically probabilistic nature, will fail in some years. Moreover, these forecasts do not specifically predict where within the Atlantic basin these storms will strike. The probability of landfall for any one location along the coast is very low and reflects the fact that, in any one season, most U.S. coastal areas will not feel the effects of a hurricane no matter how active the individual season is."

Cheers.

 

still grasping at straws G




well lets see
this one is from the NOAA yearly report



one of hundreds of papers quoting this data
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&ved=0CBAQFjAB&url=ftp%3A%2F%2Fftp.nodc.noaa.gov%2Fpub%2Fdata.nodc%2Fwoa%2FPUBLICATIONS%2Fgrlheat08.pdf&rct=j&q=papers+using+NOAA+data&ei=__6AS4PHHoKwswPYzuXxAw&usg=AFQjCNFrMx2hWnpJgB48yqSWlabmUFHkJg&sig2=tA0Eie3rHMSaI1zsnWhTuQ

this one is from the RATPAC data set

one of hundreds of papers quoting this data
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&ved=0CA0QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncdc.noaa.gov%2Foa%2Fclimate%2Fratpac%2Fpapers%2FFree_et_al_2005.pdf&rct=j&q=papers+using+ratpac+data+&ei=pP6AS5z0LIvCsQOGktSeBA&usg=AFQjCNGt_jAct0dD32wnGz3uGSWoHF40Dg&sig2=240D1c9jKp8XlqJ0g2d-wA



this one represents co2



this one temp



four papers quoting this data

need I really go on G
every graph I posted is well known within the community and has been quoted numerous times in numerous papers

what I think is confusing you is your used to the deniers dreaming up there own data to support there paper thin arguments, whereas scientists work in unison to produce a wide variety of data that is then compiled into a coherent form, checked against other data sets collated and presented with no bias for the community to use as they see fit. Unlike the deniers camp the scientists have no predetermined conclusions.

cheers
B

ps
can we try and make the questions a little harder

at least debunking Miskolczi involved discovering that his formulas were bunk and that he dreamed up his own mystery data to represent known parameters

what your on about now is kinda boring if all you want is to know is if the graphed data is used in published works

what exactly is the argument your trying to get at G

of course the NOAA NCAR and NASA data is going to be published and multiple times at that

 

interesting that Im the one being accused of the distractions
you wanted graphs and so I gave them to you
now your on about something else entirely with various local weather events not incorporated within the larger picture

its called Global climate change remember

again not presenting the entire picture
tsk tsk tsk

how about if you show a few temp graphs along with where they came from what data sets they pool and who used them in there papers

now that aught to be a hoot eh

cheers
B

how about if instead of offering ambiguous data on local weather patterns, we maybe tackle a few of the myths being spread by the disinformation campaign. Lets let the readers see for themselves how silly some of the arguments on this thread really are when compared to the simple facts

lets just take em one at a time

 

Gee whiz, the grant whores who head up of the science units in a bunch of countries and are responsible for the membership makeup of the IPCC all agree with the IPCC, startling.

 

So if the world is in one of its cyles of warming up again due to the high C02 levels ( just like before when man wasnt on the earth) how come this time they have worked out man has put the C02 there?
Thats the part of the story I dont see any facts for

 

Powerabout, that is because there are no facts, there is conjecture, guessing, and manipulation to support the AGW hypothesis as it regards C02 in order to institute a social agenda that could never be accomplished at the ballot box.

Another little piece about another IPCC screw up, this time about the "drought" in Austrailia.

Australian drought: (“Australia gate”)
As described under “temperature corrections, combined records” rise of Australian temperatures as well as rise of temperatures anywhere is not fully reliable. However, unusually modest rainfall in a specific area Murray Darling Basin was linked to global warming using the Paper Karoly et al 2007. This “Australia gate” is perhaps to some degree more a severe critic of the Karoly paper used by IPCC, than a critic of IPCC itself.
Later critic of Karoly 2007 in Geophysical research letters:” This study demonstrates that significant misunderstanding of known processes of land surface – atmosphere interactions has led to the incorrect attribution of the causes of the anomalous temperatures, as well as significant misunderstanding of their impact on evaporation within the Murray-Darling Basin…” etc:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/08/ipcc-gate-du-jour-aussie-droughtgate/
For the Murray-Darling Basin in SE Australia, you do find less rainfall in the most recent years, but not over a longer period of “global warming”. And a look at Australia as a whole reveals only increased rainfall in the last century.

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rain&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=T

 

Quote from Boston...................






Unlike the deniers camp the scientists have no predetermined conclusions.

cheers







You're kidding aren't you, just a little joke to poke us with right?

 

Boston likes to spear the oil companies all the time and make it appear the AGW agenda is opposed only by ****** and oil companies. Like most of what he says, that's plain silly. If you want an example of money used to promote an agenda, read this article from the newly awakened British media.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...mate-makes-money-move-in-mysterious-ways.html

 

From the Patriot Post Digest on Friday..........

http://patriotpost.us/edition/2010/02/19/digest/

 

Then of course for those of you were lulled into complacency by all the cherry picked graphs that Boston posted (can't believe he is still posting variants of the hockey stick), here are some factual graphs detailing yet another IPCC screw up or deliberate falsification.....

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/scandinavia-gate/

 

My scatterbrained Boston: are you really so dumb you do not realize that what you are posting is against your own position? Think, boy, think hard!

C'mon: take one of the long term graphs you have posted (why don't you use a 10000 years one, because its scale is more adequate to compare?), think a little bit, and explain to me that "rapid temperature" change of yours i.e. showing the difference in inclinings of the curves for recent warming and past ones. You perhaps would like to use a drawing utility, such as "Paint" or the like, to highlight what you want to say.

To easy things for you, here you are again the graphs I've posted before, taken from NOAA data, so I hope you can trust them. You can choose any of the portions, except the first short term one, of course. Please mark there what you want to say. I'm leaving now for a week in the Canaries, so you'll have time enough.




And by the way: if you want to discuss the short term graphs for the last century or so (why do you insist, if I have not asked for them?), it's also OK to me: prove the causation "increasing CO2 ---> increasing temperature" beyond all doubt, please. Or even the "very likeliness". With some recent papers (2008-2009-2010), if you don't mind. The ones you use to post I know them all and have been discussed already. Please save us time.

By the way II: I remember you have said the ice core data is not a trustable source, just a few posts ago. Do you remember? Please avoid that data if you want to be coherent with yourself (I know it is an almost imposssible task, but please try again )

Cheers

 

the isotopic mas balance is irrefutable

The co2 is from fossil fuels and the issue is the sudden spike and that temp should all things being equal follow that spike. Which it does seem to be doing. The change is so sudden that numerous species cant keep up with the environmental effects. Which we also see happening. Amphibians for instance are all in decline one third threatened and a third endangered. They are not expected to last another 50 or so years.

and now on myth busters

you may note that if anything the recent temp predictions were conservative and the observed was consistently at the top end of predicted

kinda blows the doors off the disinformation campaign eh

G any particular reason your top 4 graphs dont show data past the turn of the last century (1899)
kinda defeats your own argument does it not

Your argument is founded in hoping no one will notice the lack of resolution available within the scale of the graph you are insisting on and your position is obviously flawed in that it now becomes obvious for all the readers to see why you are insisting on looking at a 10,000 year graph. Because the resolution cannot exist within that wide a range to accurately depict the extremely rapid change of the last say 30 or even 100 years. A dirty trick but one that was easily caught out. No one is saying that the world was not hotter or even cooler than it is now but instead that the changes we as a species are now inducing by our irresponsible actions is happening so swiftly that the natural adaptation process that has allowed species for millions of years to tolerate gradual change is not adequate to assist them in tolerating the "Abrupt Climate Change" we are now experiencing.

The graph at the bottom is a good example exposing your tactic of poor resolution. The most recent times being depicted by a large blur. which you point to suggesting that somewhere in there is the Man curve. it in no way is able to depict the speed of change. which is the prime concern of Rapid Global Climate Change.

nice try but you have been outed again
wanna try another

 

hi, im new here but this stuff is what my college major is all about-
direct human input of CO2 (that we actually measure) into the atmosphere is ~9 gigatons/carbon per year. the atmosphere can hold about 760 gigatons/carbon while the ocean can hold nearly 3600 gigatons/carbon. we havn't begun to see the true effects of our input of carbon into the atmosphere yet because the ocean is able to absorb about half of the carbon (~4.5 gigatons/carbon) that we emit each year. however, based on analyses of carbonate organisms we can determine how much carbon the ocean can truly absorb before it reaches full saturation. the recent consensus is that the ocean is quickly reaching full saturation. This results in ocean acidification, which would kill off almost all organisms that use shells. also, the full force of our carbon emissions would start impacting the atmosphere immediately.

 

welcome to the party spear
grab a beer
there are some shrimp on the grill
bathrooms that way
oh
and if you get bored we have some climate deniers we invited to help with the entertainment

and now on today's episode of mythbusters

 

Thanks for the pejorative term, Boston. Calling us deniers as though you are trying to lump us in with the Holocaust deniers such as "Ach, my dinners bad".
We don't deny the climate is changing, as the climate has always changed and will always do so until the end. We do doubt your purported reason for climate change, however, as all the so-called evidence is a construction or lies based upon fraud and cunning deceit. It is your religion so I try not to insult you. I ask that you do likewise.