Another modeling study which ignored the actual data.
Weather Extremes : U.S Record Short-term Rainfalls | Weather Underground
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “getting smaller”
- “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- Technology Advances
- “The Hour Of Decision”
- “fair & equitable”
- Michael Mann Continues His War
- Time Travelling Satellites
- Time Traveling Satellites
- Adult Content On X
- The Climate Of 1923
- Arctic Report Card
- Green Colorado
- Hottest Summer Ever
- “Sea ice could be gone by 2012, scientists warn”
- Record CO2 Growth
- Walz’s For Trump
- 6,000 Year Old Tree In The Austrian Alps
- Gemini Can See The Future
- Clinton To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Climate Intelligence Means “Making Things Up”
- Comedy From The BBC
- The Climate Afterlife
- Rewriting The Northern Hemisphere
- Useful Graphs From ChatGPT
Recent Comments
- arn on “getting smaller”
- Gordon Vigurs on “fair & equitable”
- Gordon Vigurs on Michael Mann Continues His War
- Gordon Vigurs on Michael Mann Continues His War
- Bob G on “getting smaller”
- arn on “getting smaller”
- Hank Phillips on “getting smaller”
- Francis Barnett on “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Scott Allen on “getting smaller”
- Bob G on “getting smaller”
Even IF heavy rainfall events did “intensify” over the short-term, that would not prove it was caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
What’s in the paper –
That other scientists take climate scientists seriously–much less allow them to dictate government tyranny–is an indictment of all of science. That is why none of them dare to admit they were all wrong to let this come to pass. A generation of deaf, dumb and blind monkeys in place of real scientists. Honest scientists should be marching on Washington.
The reason any of the journals that publish such speculative drek are still in business is that a blind eye is cast by every other scientist. Their silence is quickly destroying their own credibility. It’s not so much their responsibility to call out bad work, but how can they not see how this is destroying the sciences and ultimately not in their self interest to remain silent?
Everytime I see one of these warmist tweets posted I think about the companies that were sued by the government for posting fake reviews online. Somehow I think that the warmists will escape punishment for daily pumping this BS out.
http://www.lowellsun.com/latestnews/ci_24191148/provide-fake-online-review-at-your-own-peril
http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/web/eu-outlaws-fake-online-reviews-131560
UK rainfall shows similar results.
Apart from one event in 2009, all the others on the list were decades ago.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/climate-extremes/#?tab=climateExtremes
Yet in 2006, Dr Hayley Fowler and scientists from Newcastle University, found that “extreme rainfall events” were becoming more frequent and intense as a result of “climate change”.
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press.office/press.release/item/?ref=1157358561
But then they only looked at records from 1961-2000.
Of course the findings matched the model predictions, so they must be correct:
“The pattern of change in extremes uncovered by Dr Fowler and colleagues matches the predictions made in a number of models that estimate the scale and speed of climate change over the next century. ”
But when the figures for South East England didn’t agree with theory, they went on looking until they found some figures which did:
“The probability of an extreme rainfall event in South East England over five and ten day events actually decreased by 1.5 times but further analysis showed that this part of the country is experiencing a greater frequency of smaller extreme rainfall events, and a change in the timing of such events, with a greater frequency in autumn months.”
I think they call that “confirmation bias”!
The extreme events are so small they miss the rain gauges. Therefore you can make it up; and they did!