Climate change discussion thread

johntheexpat

Well yes.  The models that the Climate scientists have come up with are all for the middle to end of this century, not now.  So anyone who claims that we are seeing global warming and its effects now are somewhat mistaken.
Unless!!!  Unless the scientists have hugely under-estimated the effects of rising CO2.  If we are seeing the effects now, then by heck, we're truly screwed.

This thread is about record weather events.  Now I know we have always had record weather events, records are there to be broken etc etc.  So one or two weather records being broken is not news, in this sense.  What may be news is if we start seeing a record number of weather records being broken.  (And its always interesting to read about record heat, rain, snow, etc etc etc).  Its by no means a scientific study, but it just lays the foundations for anyone who may be interested.  (Either in CC or just knocking it,(you know who I mean))

So yes, climate drives weather and the climate hasn't noticeably changed.  Yet.  Probably. Or if it has, by not much.  Hopefully.

EarthRod

Then in that case a fall in the number of hurricanes indicates nothing of interest either way and is just a well placed red-herring by you to try and win a point with something irrelevant.

johntheexpat

Climate changes. Always has done and always will do. Extremes will always be reached given enough time. Not so very long ago the Sahara desert used to be savannah with rivers and animals. Most of Australia used to be under the sea. Britain used to be joined to Europe... And so on - continual change.

Weather patterns continually change tied in with climate change and shifting continents. The Earth tilt changes, the poles change polarity. Ice ages come and go... and so on.

We live in a continuously changing world and we humans are just a blip on it's surface.

sidicks

Yes.  For the hundreth time yes.  (And this one in reserve for the next time someone points this out: yes)

But, with each change in climate that has occured the pattern of life on the planet has also changed.  And the change has been gradual, centuries or millenia.

The concern is that the climate will change more rapidly than we or other life forms on the planet can readily adapt to and so cause huge problems.  If you can show me anytime in planetary history where the climate has noticeably changed over the course of several decades, (which is what we are looking at) rather than centuries or millenia then I will pat you heartily on the back and admit you are right.
(10 year runs due to possible different levels of solar activity are not climate change)

johntheexpat

Err, posted in response to:

sidicks

You remind me of LGS sometimes, with your moving goalposts.  Is the extreme weather decreasing or does your graph fit in with no discernible pattern?  You have stated both, even though they are mutually exclusive.
Just so we are clear. " Extreme weather decreasing" followed by "no descernible pattern"


Is the number of hurricanes decreasing (ie the climate may be changing) or is there no discernible pattern?

If there is no discernible pattern, why did you post a graph (which is still unreadable) and then claim there was a discernible pattern (ie less hurricanes)?

EarthRod

That's a bit rich coming from the warmist perspective:

It's global warming
Oh sorry it's now climate change (as there is no warming)
Oh it's now about more extreme weather
Oh sorry, its now about weather being different from 'normal' which might mean less extreme weather.....


No they are not mutually exclusive:

Quite clearly the data shows that over the period shown on the graph, the number of hurricanes has decreased.

However, given the timescale of the data is small (relative to the age of the earth) and given that the extent of the change is small, then no discernible pattern or trend can be readily identified.

What is for certain is that it is at odds with the warmists expectations and concerns that there would be more extreme weather events.

johntheexpat

Mentioned two examples in post #83. Those examples are only in England though.

You seem to be very passionate about this stuff.

sidicks

Global warming results in climate change, most people get warmer, some get colder.  If the climate changes and the UK loses the jet stream we will end up with the same weather as New York which is colder.

The planet warms
The climates change
Most get warmer
Some get cooler

Extremes work both ways, more violent weather and at the "other extreme" less violent weather.

(You know all this but I shall try and explain away your continuous stream of red herrings for those new to the thread)

johntheexpat

Play all you like with words, but everyone can see what you are doing.
But:
What is wrong with 'some places having cooler climates'?  If the planet warms and the jet stream disappears (which isn't beyond the realms of possibility) the UK would get a cooler climate, since the Jet stream delivers warm air straight to you. The planet as a whole would be warmer, the UK would be cooler.  Or do you disagree that the Jet Stream disappearing is impossible?

No, there hasn't been any meaningful warming (in a MMGW/CC sense) over the last 30 years.  The theories are all about abnormally rapid rises in global average temperatures over the coming century and beyond.  But then I've said that so many times you are just being mischievous by repeatedly bringing it up.  Either that or you are waiting for a slip of the keyboard to present you with "evidence".  Ask the same question over and over again until you spot a slight deviation in the replies and then pounce on the "proof".   

Who was predicting fewer hurricanes?  You presented a graph that you claimed showed a decrease in the number of hurricanes (although we still can't see the graph for ourselves, despite repeated requests).
I said that a reduction in the number of hurricanes is climate change.
You then started banging on about extremes, without accepting the obvious, that if more of something is one extreme, then less is the other extreme.  Then you started playing with words and fudging the issue so I have really no clue what obtuse point it is you are trying to make.
But the bottom line is that your graph, whatever it shows, is irrelevant to the debate, because no-one is predicting consequences for many years yet.  So you find a historical bit of data showing a natural variation and enter it into a debate about future repercussions and claim it proves you right.
It proves that you have learnt your lesson well from LGS, nothing more, nothing less.