Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
No comments yet from those in denial. Have they gone away? It appears to show another another increasing trend. I just look out of my window and see cities devastated (it was Carlisle a couple of years ago as I recall) and wonder what is going on.
I still pop by now and again, if that's any help. You're not related to that robot on Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by any chance are you Seskinreay? |
| |
|
|
Hello Seskinray, Which trends were you referring to in the NOAA document? The apparent increase in frequency of occurence in figure 1 is explained. "The increase in reported tornado frequency during the early 1990s corresponds to the operational implementation of Doppler weather radars." The same seems to be the case with figure 3 - a mundane explanation. I find that paper interesting - but it does not seem to me to evidence a claim of increasing Tornado activity in the States. Toro - the UK's independent tornado reporting organisation does not seem to have examined trends - in my opinion a wise move. But the Met office - using pressure rather than wind (more robust and immune to local/observational factors) have found and increase of storms in the UK. As linked to earlier: COP09.pdf And they've done research that shows the England |
| |
|
|
DOH!! "And they've done research that shows the England" - ignore - changed format of post before posting. 2nd time I've done that today.  |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Roger58: quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
No comments yet from those in denial. Have they gone away? It appears to show another another increasing trend. I just look out of my window and see cities devastated (it was Carlisle a couple of years ago as I recall) and wonder what is going on.
Roger, Bernard Manning has gone now so there is a standup slot waiting for you. Any views on the floods et al? Is it JUST weather to you as well?? I still pop by now and again, if that's any help. You're not related to that robot on Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by any chance are you Seskinreay?
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by CobblyWorlds: Hello Seskinray, Which trends were you referring to in the NOAA document? The apparent increase in frequency of occurence in figure 1 is explained. "The increase in reported tornado frequency during the early 1990s corresponds to the operational implementation of Doppler weather radars." The same seems to be the case with figure 3 - a mundane explanation. I find that paper interesting - but it does not seem to me to evidence a claim of increasing Tornado activity in the States. Toro - the UK's independent tornado reporting organisation does not seem to have examined trends - in my opinion a wise move. But the Met office - using pressure rather than wind (more robust and immune to local/observational factors) have found and increase of storms in the UK. As linked to earlier: COP09.pdf And they've done research that shows the England
Hi CobbyWorlds I saw fig 1 and jumped to conclusions (lack of scientific rigour there - just watch roger58 now !!). Why is it wise for Toro not to have examied trends in the UK? Its only in the last two years that I have become aware of local (UK) tornadoes - was this just down to lack of media reporting? Pretty news worthy stuff I'd have thought. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay:
Any views on the floods et al?
Nope - only floods around here are crocodile tears. quote: Is it JUST weather to you as well??
Jup - it's JUST weather to me. - Have you noticed how we're having far more weather this year than since records began?? After a great deal of thought, I blame the end of the world, al qaeda or the recent smoking ban. |
| |
|
|
quote: Roger58 said:
Jup - it's JUST weather to me.
Well, I'd like to know if you still call it "just weather" if you were flooded out of your house 3 times in the last 5 years and couldn't get any sort of home insurance the LAST time it happened (which is what a lot people are now facing).
¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ buzz buzz buzz¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lucibee: quote: Roger58 said:
Jup - it's JUST weather to me.
Well, I'd like to know if you still call it "just weather" if you were flooded out of your house 3 times in the last 5 years and couldn't get any sort of home insurance the LAST time it happened (which is what a lot people are now facing).
Lucibee, welcome to Roger58's world. And BTW your welcome to it !! |
| |
|
|
Nah - he can keep it!
¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ buzz buzz buzz¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸
|
| |
|
|
CobblyWorlds quote: But this NOAA document for the States is interesting.
Hey looks like peak Tornado activity coincided with peak temperature back in 1998. What's the lesson I should draw from that? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Seskinreay: quote: Originally posted by CobblyWorlds: Hello Seskinray, Which trends were you referring to in the NOAA document? The apparent increase in frequency of occurence in figure 1 is explained. "The increase in reported tornado frequency during the early 1990s corresponds to the operational implementation of Doppler weather radars." The same seems to be the case with figure 3 - a mundane explanation. I find that paper interesting - but it does not seem to me to evidence a claim of increasing Tornado activity in the States. Toro - the UK's independent tornado reporting organisation does not seem to have examined trends - in my opinion a wise move. But the Met office - using pressure rather than wind (more robust and immune to local/observational factors) have found and increase of storms in the UK. As linked to earlier: COP09.pdf And they've done research that shows the England
Hi CobbyWorlds I saw fig 1 and jumped to conclusions (lack of scientific rigour there - just watch roger58 now !!). Why is it wise for Toro not to have examied trends in the UK? Its only in the last two years that I have become aware of local (UK) tornadoes - was this just down to lack of media reporting? Pretty news worthy stuff I'd have thought.
Sorry about that Seskinray. Roger58's not got a leg to stand on. The recent flooding and general weather may be caused by the El-Nino/Arctic Oscillation, but the bottom line is we live in a global warming world. He cannot rule out an anthropogenic element in the current weather. Like you it was only some years ago that I became aware of Tornados in the UK. But I am sure that in the past there have been localised reports of damage in the media, damage they've described as being caused by freak winds. To quote from that paper: "The increase in reported tornado frequency during the early 1990s corresponds to the operational implementation of Doppler weather radars. Other nonmeteorological factors that must be considered when looking at the increase in reported tornado frequency over the past 33 years are the advent of cellular telephones; the development of spotter networks by NWS offices, local emergency management officials, and local media; and population shifts." Similar factors apply here and in the last few years (coincidence? I think not) weather has been getting on TV in the guise of programmes like "Eye of the Storm" etc. One problem now is a lot of people knowing about climate change are apt to attribute much to it that is not really down to it. The problem with that is it creates an expectation in the minds of the public that, unless there is evidence, has no reason for intensifying, and when it doesn't happen people get cynical. ********************************************* Pat Michaels was on Channel 4 News earlier - he blew the interviewer off course by boldly declaring that there was no doubt about a degree of human impact in warming from CO2 emissions. But he disagreed that the warming to come is likely to be seriously problematic. Pat Micheals distorted a graph of projections when he appeared before the US congress on 29/7/1998. More detail here. He claimed that the models had overshot projections, that they would project alarmistly. He was wrong. The model results he distorted were from a study that's still proving to be a pretty skillful projection. See here. The forcings for scenario B are pretty close to what happened. So who are we to believe? Pat " Have you seen this graph" Micheals. With is "It won't be so bad. What's everyone so worried about" sophistry? or Jim " I was right in 1988 and I'm worried that I'm still right in 2007" Hansen. With his "If we have not already passed the dangerous level, the energy infrastructure in place ensures that we will pass it within several decades." So called alarmism. I say "so-called alarmism" because it's only alarmist if he's not likely to be right. If you can keep your head and remain cool whilst everyone around is running about panicking, you probably don't get the gravity of the situation. |
| |
|
|
I'm not going to argue the definition of a hurricane even though all a hurricane technically is, is a storm with a super cell and winds exceeding 74 mph.
anyway my original point:
- global warming cannot cause more hurricanes because as the temprature difference between the polls and the equator lessens as in global warming (models also show this) the frequency of storms decreases.
-AGW rebuttal, but global warming causes more evaporation and larger amounts of moisture in the air causes more laten heat energy to be disbursed.
-In order for tropical storms to occur the level of moisture in the air has to be low. The above statement defies physics.
|
| |
|
|
Geowizard, As I'm busy here's the issue addressed at RealClimate. |
| |
|
|
I'd just like to point out that the main reason we are talking about the floods is because a lot of people have lost money and possessions (and sadly some their lives).
If housing was built responsibly and not on flood plains I doubt we'd be discussing this in the context of a climate change disaster.
"Oh look that fields a bit wet" ... doesn't have the same draw does it?
Stop building houses on flood plains!!!!!
|
| |
|
|
CW,
Careful, when I criticised Lindzen (as the link from your post does) Geowizard went off on one! Read more about Geowizard's beliefs at his convenient-lie dot com forum (which needs a spam filter).
|
| |
|
|
quote: If housing was built responsibly and not on flood plains I doubt we'd be discussing this in the context of a climate change disaster.
That has likely added to the problem, but occasions of freak rainfall have gone up in the UK in the last 20-30 years. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Steve_M:
CW,
Careful, when I criticised Lindzen (as the link from your post does) Geowizard went off on one! Read more about Geowizard's beliefs at his convenient-lie dot com forum (which needs a spam filter).
Actually I "went off on one" mainly because your first thing to do when I came here was to insult me and also because you are the biggest hypocrite here, of course I am talking about how you are paid by the IPCC to create there models. Perhaps you want to tell us again how you do not hold your views based on your funding, but again we will have to take you word for it.. As for the site forum it got hit by a google bot and I will be removing the forum completely soon. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Geowizard:
I'm not going to argue the definition of a hurricane even though all a hurricane technically is, is a storm with a super cell and winds exceeding 74 mph.
anyway my original point:
- global warming cannot cause more hurricanes because as the temprature difference between the polls and the equator lessens as in global warming (models also show this) the frequency of storms decreases.
-AGW rebuttal, but global warming causes more evaporation and larger amounts of moisture in the air causes more laten heat energy to be disbursed.
-In order for tropical storms to occur the level of moisture in the air has to be low. The above statement defies physics.
1. A severe tropical cyclone originating in the equatorial regions of the Atlantic Ocean or Caribbean Sea or eastern regions of the Pacific Ocean, traveling north, northwest, or northeast from its point of origin, and usually involving heavy rains. 2. A wind with a speed greater than 74 miles (119 kilometers) per hour, according to the Beaufort scale. 3. Something resembling a hurricane in force or speed. Fair enough Geo - I won't split hairs but I reckon that warmer water temperatures means more hurricanes and/or fiercer ones. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Steve_M:
CW,
Careful, when I criticised Lindzen (as the link from your post does) Geowizard went off on one! Read more about Geowizard's beliefs at his convenient-lie dot com forum (which needs a spam filter).
Lindzen's a crying shame. He seems to have done a lot of useful and interesting work in his career, now it all seems to have gone a bit pear-shaped after his "Iris Hypothesis" wasn't born out by the evidence. In the solar pages of the site you mentioned they're using out of date papers and even falling into the "other planets" trap. They'd do better to consider more recent work like Frohlich who found no evidence for an increasing trend since 1978 - bearing in mind the 0.6degC warming over the same period - also referenced in Foukal 2006 I think. And perhaps they might like to follow up Damon and Laut's criticism of the Christensen 1991/2000 papers "Pattern of Strange Errors Plagues Solar Activity and Terrestrial Climate Data" A title that could be applied to much of the solar-GW work to date. Then the page seems to go on to use sonde data, whist ignoring both the MSU data and Fu/Johnasen's work on the MSU datasets (GRL 2005). Work that shows "that tropospheric temperature trends in the tropics are greater than the surface warming and increase with height." Although I've not read it fully (got bored) so happy to be corrected on that point. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by CobblyWorlds: Geowizard, As I'm busy here's the issue addressed at RealClimate.
And to paraphrase (as I understand it) for those who don't like clicking links, it's mid-latitute cyclones (winter storms) that are affected by polar temperature gradients and not tropical cyclones (mid-atlantic hurricanes), which are affected by atmospheric wind shear in the tropics (amongst other things). Not sure whether that answers the question about whether tropical cyclones are exacerbated by increased temperatures...
¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ buzz buzz buzz¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by CobblyWorlds:
So who are we to believe?
Pat "Have you seen this graph" Micheals. With is "It won't be so bad. What's everyone so worried about" sophistry?
or
Jim "I was right in 1988 and I'm worried that I'm still right in 2007" Hansen. With his "If we have not already passed the dangerous level, the energy
infrastructure in place ensures that we will pass it within several decades." So called alarmism.
I say "so-called alarmism" because it's only alarmist if he's not likely to be right.
It would seem to me prudent to take the cautious approach and go for Hanson. What can possibly be more important than survival? If you think taking action is expensive try inaction! |
| |
|
|
Quite Seskinreay,
Hansen bothers me, when Richard Lindzen was dallying around rubbishing GW by claiming it would reduce upper atmosphere humidity and thus there'd be no GW. Hansen was pushing for specific studies to look into it.
Hansen was shown right, by teams led my Soden and Minschwaner and Dessler.
Lindzen was wrong.
Hansen has an unsettling knack of being right*, if there was a god called Gaia, I suspect he'd have their personal number. (*Luckily being right once is no guarantee a person will be again)
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by CobblyWorlds:
Quite Seskinreay,
Hansen bothers me, when Richard Lindzen was dallying around rubbishing GW by claiming it would reduce upper atmosphere humidity and thus there'd be no GW. Hansen was pushing for specific studies to look into it.
Hansen was shown right, by teams led my Soden and Minschwaner and Dessler.
Lindzen was wrong.
Hansen has an unsettling knack of being right*, if there was a god called Gaia, I suspect he'd have their personal number. (*Luckily being right once is no guarantee a person will be again)
From http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1176828,00.html Hansen: Business-as-usual will yield warming of | |
