Five Things You Need To Know About The Paris Climate Deal

genuineoriginal

New member
Really?

Are you sure?

Did you even look?

Is your claim
  • we have improved in our ability to detect natural disasters
  • our definition of natural disasters has changed so more events fit the definition
  • we are collecting information from places that never provided reports previously
  • a, b, and c
  • there are just more natural disasters now
 

Quetzal

New member
Is your claim
  • we have improved in our ability to detect natural disasters
  • our definition of natural disasters has changed so more events fit the definition
  • we are collecting information from places that never provided reports previously
  • a, b, and c
  • there are just more natural disasters now
My claim is that the theory that more natural disasters have occurred due to climate change has data to support it. Any of those things can contribute, but my point is that Brew's claim that they have dramatically decreased has no foundation in any data set at all.
 

brewmama

New member
Really?
0,,15854531_401,00.jpg


Are you sure?
CATASTROPHES0007.gif


Did you even look?
o-NATURAL-DISASTER-PATTERNS-570.jpg

Did you? Even the IPCC has bailed on this one. As Roger Pielke has summarized:

"In the process of updating Senate testimony given back in July (here in PDF) I did compile some key statements from the IPCC AR5 WGI Chapter 2 on extremes.

Here are a few:
“Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is large spatial variability"
"There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”
“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”
“In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”
“In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems”
“In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950”
“In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low”
There is really not much more to be said here -- the data says what it says, and what it says is so unavoidably obvious that the IPCC has recognized it in its consensus.

Of course, I have no doubts that claims will still be made associating floods, drought, hurricanes and tornadoes with human-caused climate change -- Zombie science -- but I am declaring victory in this debate. Climate campaigners would do their movement a favor by getting themselves on the right side of the evidence."

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2013/10/coverage-of-extreme-events-in-ipcc-ar5.html
 

Quetzal

New member
Did you? Even the IPCC has bailed on this one. As Roger Pielke has summarized:

"In the process of updating Senate testimony given back in July (here in PDF) I did compile some key statements from the IPCC AR5 WGI Chapter 2 on extremes.

Here are a few:
“Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is large spatial variability"
"There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”
“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”
“In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”
“In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems”
“In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950”
“In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low”
There is really not much more to be said here -- the data says what it says, and what it says is so unavoidably obvious that the IPCC has recognized it in its consensus.

Of course, I have no doubts that claims will still be made associating floods, drought, hurricanes and tornadoes with human-caused climate change -- Zombie science -- but I am declaring victory in this debate. Climate campaigners would do their movement a favor by getting themselves on the right side of the evidence."

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2013/10/coverage-of-extreme-events-in-ipcc-ar5.html
Gee, another blog post with no data to support it, you are in good company. Now, if you would like to continue I suggest you first defend your initial statement that claims disasters are decreasing.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
My claim is that the theory that more natural disasters have occurred due to climate change has data to support it.
Not according to the graphs you provided.
They only show a, b, and c.

Any of those things can contribute, but my point is that Brew's claim that they have dramatically decreased has no foundation in any data set at all.
Try filtering the data sets so you only get results that match the locations, definitions, and ability to detect and report that was in effect in 1900.

Climate scientists love to change the criteria throughout the graph in order to make it look like things are getting worse.

They did it with the temperatures, such as when they took estimates from ice cores and tacked that onto actual readings from thermometers, then took readings from primarily urban areas and tacked that onto readings from mostly rural areas, to provide a hockey stick graph.
Of course, they also adjusted the data to meet their pre-conceived notions of what the temperatures should have been, which is pure fraud.
 

Quetzal

New member
Not according to the graphs you provided.
They only show a, b, and c.


Try filtering the data sets so you only get results that match the locations, definitions, and ability to detect and report that was in effect in 1900.

Climate scientists love to change the criteria throughout the graph in order to make it look like things are getting worse.

They did it with the temperatures, such as when they took estimates from ice cores and tacked that onto actual readings from thermometers, then took readings from primarily urban areas and tacked that onto readings from mostly rural areas, to provide a hockey stick graph.
Of course, they also adjusted the data to meet their pre-conceived notions of what the temperatures should have been, which is pure fraud.
Ah, so your argument is: "fraud because reasons." Noted.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
With data to support it from multiple international sources.
They do not have the data, they have the altered data.

It is a theory, for sure, but so far the data models support it.
When the data was actually checked, it was found to be fraudulent.

_____
Mind-Blowing Temperature Fraud At NOAA

The measured US temperature data from USHCN shows that the US is on a long-term cooling trend. But the reported temperatures from NOAA show a strong warming trend.

ScreenHunter_10009-Jul.-27-12.16.gif


Measured : ushcn.tavg.latest.raw.tar.gz
Reported : ushcn.tavg.latest.FLs.52j.tar.gz

They accomplish this through a spectacular hockey stick of data tampering, which corrupts the US temperature trend by almost two degrees.

ScreenHunter_10008-Jul.-27-12.08.gif


The biggest component of this fraud is making up data. Almost half of all reported US temperature data is now fake. They fill in missing rural data with urban data to create the appearance of non-existent US warming.

ScreenHunter_10010-Jul.-27-12.20.gif


The depths of this fraud is breathtaking, but completely consistent with the fraudulent profession which has become known as “climate science”
_____​
 

Quetzal

New member
They do not have the data, they have the altered data.


When the data was actually checked, it was found to be fraudulent.

_____
Mind-Blowing Temperature Fraud At NOAA

The measured US temperature data from USHCN shows that the US is on a long-term cooling trend. But the reported temperatures from NOAA show a strong warming trend.

ScreenHunter_10009-Jul.-27-12.16.gif


Measured : ushcn.tavg.latest.raw.tar.gz
Reported : ushcn.tavg.latest.FLs.52j.tar.gz

They accomplish this through a spectacular hockey stick of data tampering, which corrupts the US temperature trend by almost two degrees.

ScreenHunter_10008-Jul.-27-12.08.gif


The biggest component of this fraud is making up data. Almost half of all reported US temperature data is now fake. They fill in missing rural data with urban data to create the appearance of non-existent US warming.

ScreenHunter_10010-Jul.-27-12.20.gif


The depths of this fraud is breathtaking, but completely consistent with the fraudulent profession which has become known as “climate science”
_____​
You are giving me data from a personal, wordpress blog... yeah no dice. I could make one myself and claim whatever I want.
 

ClimateSanity

New member
What is more believable? That close to 200 nations are all in on it together to do evil stuff or there might be genuine data that supports this theory. You tell me.

Those 200 nations are mostly corrupt third world nations whose leaders live lives of luxury, living off IMF handouts while their citizens languish in poverty. Their citizens would prefer cheap plentiful energy over an imaginary stoppage to an increase in sea level.
 

ClimateSanity

New member
My claim is that the theory that more natural disasters have occurred due to climate change has data to support it. Any of those things can contribute, but my point is that Brew's claim that they have dramatically decreased has no foundation in any data set at all.

That's complete lie.
 

Nick M

Plymouth Colonist
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
My claim is that the theory that more natural disasters have occurred due to climate change has data to support it.

No it doesn't. There is a reason the original data was destroyed. It didn't support the claims.

climategate email hoax participant said:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
 
Top