Reach a conclusion, then selectively seek evidence to back it up. And always remember that history began in 1950.
Scientists seek link between climate change and extreme weather events
Link between climate change and recent extreme weather events can no longer be ignored, say top scientists
Scientists are to end their 20-year reluctance to link climate change with extreme weather – the heavy storms, floods and droughts which often fill news bulletins – as part of a radical departure from a previous equivocal position that many now see as increasingly untenable.
Climate researchers from Britain, the United States and other parts of the world have formed a new international alliance that aims to investigate exceptional weather events to see whether they can be attributable to global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
They believe that it is no longer plausible merely to claim that extreme weather is “consistent” with climate change. Instead, they intend to assess each unusual event in terms of the probability that it has been exacerbated or even caused by the global temperature increase seen over the past century.
Scientists are to end their 20-year reluctance
. . . under penalty of unpersoning.” would be the honest way to close that sentence.
yawn
Did they look at trends or just weather events? 😉
I have shown here time and again that there are no trends in extreme weather events.
I propose a study that looks at average weather events and then say we have found a link between average weather events and global warming. Easy really. “%)
lol, 1950? Looks like it started in 2000!! The fact is, looking at this map, I’m willing to wager that significant climatic events are on a decline in rate of occurrence. They found 12 things in 12 years. Christy’s testimony to congress alludes to how often one would expect these occurrences, I think we’ve should’ve seen more.
You are on the right track. Hurrican activity at 30 year lows.
“Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity”, Dr. Ryan Maue,
http://www.agu.org/journals/pip/gl/2011GL047711-pip.pdf
Floods
“Analysis of trends and of aggregated time series on climatic (30-year) scale does not indicate consistent trends worldwide. Despite common perception, in general, the detected trends are more negative (less intense floods in most recent years) than positive. Similarly, Svensson et al. (2005) and Di Baldassarre et al. (2010) did not find systematical change neither in flood increasing or decreasing numbers nor change in flood magnitudes in their analysis.”
http://itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1128/
Forest Fires
We believe that global warming since 1850 may have triggered decreases in fire frequency in some regions and future warming may even lead to further decreases in fire frequency. Simulations of present and future fire regimes, using daily outputs from the General Circulation Model (GCM), were in good agreement with recent trends observed in fire history studies.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2307/3237261/abstract
***Other weather events show no trend. Over 30 years of global warming has resulted in safer weather. 😉
It just occurs to me that, given what we actually know to be true about increased CO2, that it encourages plant growth, and given the level of wildfire suppression, which leads to greater and greater masses of unburnt plant matter lying around, it seems inevitable that when they take off, wildfires should be much worse than in times passed[sic, thank you].
There is pretty solid evidence that 19th and early 20th century forest fires were much larger.
OT
More evidence that the political left lives in a make believe world:
Video of President Obama saying he has 5 1/2 more years to go:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/06/30/optimistic_obama_i_got_five-and-a-half_years_more_to_go.html
OT
Will the media relentlessly embarrass the President for getting his daughters age wrong—twice?
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43585752/ns/today-today_people/t/oops-obama-messes-his-daughters-age/?gt1=43001
If Michele Bachmann had done the same thing what would happen?
Fools! The fingerprints of global warming are all over that chart – The NY Times says they are, though it doesn’t say WHAT they are – no-one ever does. BTW – what’s a “strange” monsoon or an “abnormal” storm?
I read a coupla days ago that if (due to “warming”) more winter precipitation falls as rain rather than snow, it’ll cause more flooding. That’s logical – if drainage is more spread over the winter rather than a few weeks of melting in spring it’ll mean “bigger, more spectacular floods”? These people have only half a brain, and think their readers have less.
“Link between climate change and recent extreme weather events can no longer be ignored, say top scientists”
And they are right. In a COOLING world we will see MORE extreme weather events.
Richard Lindzen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz8KiA-YMt8&playnext=1&list=PL8B4B9A211E134A89
min 1.25
This week in global warming (sic):
Snow in Brazil (!).
Snow in BC (in summer!)
More snow here. Best ski season in Oz for years.
Big blue patches in SST’s all over the place.
I should make a map and do a press release. Do you think if I ask nicely I’ll get a grant to do it?
Whatever happened to the alarmist that use to scream “WEATHER ISN’T CLIMATE”?
I kinda miss the old days. Ok maybe not.
Extremely simplistic and misleading to look at ten years of weather totally outside the context of prior weather history.
The “hottest summer on record in Canada (2009)”. Is that for one station? Average of all stations? Does that take the data gaps colored red by Hansen into account? How far does this record go back? Does the record go back to the extreme hot summer of the 1936, when, for example, it was 113 in Manitoba and when Toronto had three straight days of 106? There was no heat even remotely approaching that in 2009.
Looking at the recent sunspot announcements we should be concerned about increasing extreme weather events. They are more likely to be linked to GLOBAL COOLING, which is currently just starting its progress and is likely to continue cold for a generation, if not longer.
Will warming alarmists ever wake up to this.
North-western USA temperatures have been low this year with massive snowfalls etc. These lower temperatures and warmer air form the Gulf of Mexico generate increased differentials and thus give rise to the more extreme weather / tornado events that we have seen recently. As Global Cooling proceeds the differential – Poles to the Equator grows and one can expect more weather extremes not less.
A warmer climate is likely to be more BENIGN but a colder climate is TRULY DEADLY.
From http://judithcurry.com/2011/05/26/the-futility-of-carbon-reduction/#more-3330 Brian H | June 1, 2011 at 6:22 am |
At a rough guess, the odds of warming being benign are about 80%, and of cooling being benign about 0.01%. The odds of warming occurring are about 10%, and of cooling occurring about 60%. The ratio of the riskiness is thus [(1-.8)(.1)]/[(.6)(1-.9999)] = .02/.00006 = 333. So it makes 333X more sense to prepare for cooling disaster than for warming.
A warm planet is a happy planet 🙂
Edmh says: Will warming alarmists ever wake up to this.
They did several years ago when they switched from global warming to climate change. Now the next step is on to “weather is climate”. And “AGW should be the null hypothesis”.
The headquarters of these science journals and media outlets need to be burned to the ground and many lampposts need to be festooned with bodies to put a final nail in this coffin. I’ve had quite enough of this dangerous BS and it needs to end forcibly and with extreme prejudice.
My list of 1971 climatic events is coming on nicely. I think it will be surprising to see just how much is on it.
More of the BS indeed. How do these peopel even keep a straight face when producing this stuff.
But, I hvae to say that amongst my engineering colleagues, who are smart, educated, people, the strongest argument in favor of AGW is that “99% of climate scientists agree”. They are reluctant to think that maybe this argument isn’t sensible. Why would they lie?
I counter that in fact, the whole climate science edifice is controlled by a small clique (climategat) that actively stiffles dissenting research and that many researchers go along with the AGW theme as it enables them to get more funding. Also, some may be deliberately lieing but others may be genuinely deluded.
I posted the following on this at klimazwiebel:
“Trenberth is famous for using easily-broken logic, or should be. His infamous ‘energy budget’ has the Earth’s surface emitting more power than is provided by the Sun, the climate’s sole power source. This is known (to competent scientists) as a gross violation of the conservation of energy. I would not trust a scientist (and this includes the “97% of all climate scientists” who are said to back the consensus) who cannot even tell when his theory is violating the conservation of energy, as the consensus greenhouse theory does. The hydrological cycle (including storms) is a mere localized overlay on the primary thermodynamics of the atmosphere, which is shown by the global hydrostatic heat structure, the overall temperature distribution, of the atmosphere (see my blog). I am coining a new climate law: “Hydrostatic before hydrologic”. I think when climate science is properly done, it will be found that the number and severity of storms, which are LOCALIZED atmospheric events (or hydrological), are independent of the global, background level of water vapor in the atmosphere (hydrostatic). But climate science may not catch up to the revolution it faces, in my lifetime (say within the next 30 years).”
The warming thing isn’t selling. People are statring to notice that the weather is the same as it ever was. We’ve got to kick it up to the next level – random warmist PR consultant.
Wow… All of that mayhem with a purported 1 degree F rise of average temperature over the course of an entire +century with actually no rise in temperature in the southern hemisphere. Don’t even mention the fact that every event listed occured during a period where temps are falling relatively.
Is it a stretch to call a flood a climatic event?
“Climate researchers from Britain, the United States and other parts of the world have formed a new international alliance that aims to investigate exceptional weather events to see whether they can be attributable to global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions.”
They should probably wait till they do that work before they release their pretty graphic.
Oh well, too late.