Results 2,651 to 2,675 of 3644
-
11-28-2019, 03:37 PM #2651
I just remember Ron not being able to read graphs.
Is this still going on?Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
>>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<
-
11-28-2019, 04:00 PM #2652
-
11-28-2019, 04:55 PM #2653
-
11-28-2019, 05:04 PM #2654
The fact that Ron can't see that myopic fools such as himself are being mocked is very telling of his state of denial. I highly doubt that someone as delusional as himself is married, but If he is, he would likely never know he is being cuckolded, even when the evidence is right in his face and in his bed.
Or he's just a cynical schill, I actually hope the latter for his sake.Forum Cross Pollinator, gratuitously strident
-
11-28-2019, 07:26 PM #2655Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
Actually we had already resolved that koalas aren't becoming functionally extinct due to global warming. This started up again because you decided to post a summary of some of the "science" in this thread, of which, you got maybe 20% right.
But to bring it back to Australian rainfall, my chart was entirely relevant, because finding small regional trends in drought is proof of nothing. For example, the fact that the central US has seen significantly less intense heat over the past 70 years is not proof that the globe isn't warming.
That's why Ron wrong because many of his arguments are either outdated or cherry picked, contrary to his false accusations of me doing the same. For example, the IPCC report referenced earlier in this thread came out before the extreme rainfall paper and several of the ancillary regional paper(s) were released so it will be interesting to see what the next IPCC report says about extreme rainfall. Whereas Ron fell back on the earlier, now outdated, IPCC report to make false accusations of cherry picking.
The same is true of the hurricane data. Ron’s Forbes article even make the same point. The Forbes article references the 2017 Climate Assessment and mentions updated hurricane research so Ron’s “indisputable facts” are not so unequivocal. It's not cherry picking to cite updated research. In fact, this what the latest 2018 U.S. National Climate Assessment has to say:“Human-induced change is affecting atmospheric dynamics and contributing to the poleward expansion of the tropics and the northward shift in Northern Hemisphere winter storm tracks since 1950. Increases in greenhouse gases and decreases in air pollution have contributed to increases in Atlantic hurricane activity since 1970. In the future, Atlantic and eastern North Pacific hurricane rainfall and intensity are projected to increase, as are the frequency and severity of landfalling “atmospheric rivers” on the West Coast.”
Since the most recent research is so important to you, here is what NOAA has to say, updated Nov 25, 2019:
"Existing records of past Atlantic tropical storm or hurricane numbers (1878 to present) in fact do show a pronounced upward trend, which is also correlated with rising SSTs (e.g., see blue curve in Fig. 4 or Vecchi and Knutson 2008). However, the density of reporting ship traffic over the Atlantic was relatively sparse during the early decades of this record, such that if storms from the modern era (post 1965) had hypothetically occurred during those earlier decades, a substantial number of storms would likely not have been directly observed by the ship-based “observing network of opportunity.” We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, there remains just a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006. Statistical tests indicate that this trend is not significantly distinguishable from zero (Figure 2). In addition, Landsea et al. (2010) note that the rising trend in Atlantic tropical storm counts is almost entirely due to increases in short-duration (<2 day) storms alone. Such short-lived storms were particularly likely to have been overlooked in the earlier parts of the record, as they would have had less opportunity for chance encounters with ship traffic."
"In short, the historical Atlantic hurricane frequency record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term increase."
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-war...nd-hurricanes/
Additionally, this quote from the WMO tropical cyclone assessment, is from October 2019: "only 1 of 11 authors agreed with the following statement: ‘the balance of evidence suggests that there has been a detectable increase in North Atlantic [tropical cyclone] activity since the 1970s’."
Even if it were true that your claim that Atlantic hurricane activity has increased since 1970, what does it matter? What exactly is your point? There hasn't been any increase in landfalls since 1900, and there hasn't been an increase in hurricanes globally.
This is just like your Australian drought claims - but look! there is drought in SE Australia! But look! there is more hurricane intensity in the West Pacific! You just continue your cherry picking tactics as evidence of global warming.
The same is true of Ron’s claim that there hasn’t been an increase in heatwaves which is just as wrong today as it was earlier in this thread. Does it even need to be pointed out that increasingly frequent heatwaves in Europe, Australia and across much of Asia is the opposite of cherry picking? Those are, after all, substantial areas of the planet.
Ron even tried to hang his hat on pre-1950 Australian heatwaves but the summer of 2018−19 was Australia's overall hottest on record during which several major heatwaves occurred and even between the record peak events, temperatures remained high. And prior to the 2019 heatwave, the 2009 southeastern Australia heatwave led to record-breaking prolonged high temperatures in the region. That heat wave was thought to be one of the, if not the, most extreme in the region's history up until 2019.
The reality is heatwaves are increasing in Australia too.
and http://joannenova.com.au/2015/02/hea...-abc-say-that/
Like I said, I can't find any heat wave data on Europe, so I'm going to ignore it and pretend you are right. Asia has a scarcity of data, so its tough to make any strong conclusions there. Australia is not seeing more heatwaves, and the US is seeing significantly less heat waves.
-
11-28-2019, 07:26 PM #2656Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
And finally wildfires. There are two large trends at play. Because of human agricultural expansion, intensification and increasing population density there's been a decrease in area burned, the largest of which is African savannas and grasslands, while at the same time there's been a significant increase in the intensity and reach of fires in other areas like the western United States and the recent fires in Australia. Two things can true at the same time. It's not cherry picking to say climate change has exacerbating wildfires even though globally machines have shrunk the total area available to fires for farmland.
The bottom line is climate change is exacerbating wildfires in fire-prone ecosystems even though overall those ecosystems are shrinking due to human development.
There has not been a significant increase in the intensity and reach of fires in the Western US. From my first global wildfire study:
"Few studies exist that have explicitly examined trends in fire severity. These have mainly focused on the western USA, an area where there are particular concerns about increased fire activity [42,70]. Examining trends from 1984 to 2006 for large ecoregions in the north- and southwest USA, Dillon et al. [71] found no significant increase in the proportion of annual area burned at high severity for five of the six regions considered, with the southern Rockies being the exception. For the Sierra Nevada region (California), which was not covered in the previous study [71], Hanson & Odion [72,73] found no general increase in fire severity within the period 1984–2010. Considering ten national forests in California for the same period, Miller & Safford [74] found a significant increase in burn severity for yellow pine–mixed conifer forests. They attribute this largely to decades of fire suppression and other management practices rather than climate, which have led to major changes in forest composition and structure, increases in density and fuel-loading, and hence fire behaviour. Covering the much larger area of the dry forest landscapes of the western USA, including large parts of those examined in the aforementioned studies, Baker [75] found that the rate of high-severity fire in the period 1984–2012 was within or below that of historical century- to millennial-scale estimates."
Yes, I acknowledge the referenced studies are a bit dated, but regardless, Western US fires are oders of magnitude smaller compared to the early half of the 20th century.
And finally, no, Australia's fires are not getting worse: https://theconversation.com/climate-...he-point-19649
-
11-28-2019, 07:31 PM #2657Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
11-28-2019, 07:32 PM #2658Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
11-28-2019, 07:39 PM #2659Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
I dismiss your 11,000 scientists including Mickey Mouse link, I dismiss your first WaPo article, I dismiss your second WaPo article, I dismiss your illogical belief that expanding world government is an impossibility, but I'm the myopic fool? Have you gotten anything in this thread right?
-
11-28-2019, 08:22 PM #2660
Once again this is the reason why Ron arguments are like that scene in movies where you realize BOTH pilots are gone is because this is what his own now updated source (IPCC) has to say about the things being discussed on this page:
"Globally, in many (but not all) regions with sufficient data there is medium confidence that the length or number of warm spells or heatwaves has increased since the middle of the 20th century."
"It is likely that there have been statistically significant increases in the number of heavy precipitation events (e.g., 95th percentile) in more regions than there have been statistically significant decreases, but there are strong regional and subregional variations in the trends." Which is the same point I made, i.e. about increasing 95th percentile "extreme" events, earlier in this thread.
For all of Ron's false accusation about cherry picking and so on, his own source refutes his absurd heatwave statement and refutes his accusation about "cherry picking individual papers"
What's more,
- Ron keeps ignoring that the drying across portions of Australia is the most large-scale change in rainfall since national records began in 1900. It's not a so called regional drought, it's a long term trend resulting from climate change.
- Ron's joannenova Australia argument failed to include the latest 2018-2019 heatwaves which have since superseded pre-1950 heatwaves in scope and affected area. It was also the hottest summer on record for New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, which was 1.35 °C above its previous record. South Australia and Tasmania had their second-hottest summers on record, and Queensland its third-hottest.
- Ron's Australia's fires are not getting worse "theconversation" article is from 2013 and does not include the unprecedented drought and fires that have happened since.
- Contrary to Ron's “indisputable facts,” the point about Atlantic hurricane activity increasing is simply the fact that latest 2018/2019 research says the proportion of the highest hurricane intensity significantly increased in the Atlantic so we'll have to see if that tips the balance in subsequent consensus reports.
- Ron's Western US., per his own assessment, is in fact outdated. Because there are more fires and those fires are larger:
Over the past six decades, there has been a steady increase in the number of fires in the western U.S. In fact, the majority of western fires—61 percent—have occurred since 2000.
Those fires are also burning more acres of land. The average annual amount of acres burned has been steadily increasing since 1950. The number of megafires—fires that burn more than 100,000 acres (156 square miles)—has increased in the past two decades. In fact, no documented megafires occurred before 1970.
https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2830/s...he-western-us/
-
11-28-2019, 08:36 PM #2661
Thanks for continuing to post useful and accurate information in this thread but you should really stop engaging with ron. He must either be getting paid to post all the bullshit or at the very least knows it's bullshit and is doing this deliberately on his own. Like it has to be trolling, right? Otherwise how can you criticize the cherry picking and sources while at the same time ONLY cherry picking data and sharing garbage discredited sources? How can you claim to be the smartest person in the thread? How can you claim to be smart while ignoring what's staring you right in the face?
Use the ignore feature and move on.Last edited by jamal; 11-28-2019 at 09:18 PM.
-
11-28-2019, 08:47 PM #2662
-
11-28-2019, 10:26 PM #2663Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
I have never disputed that heatwaves have increased since the middle of the 20th century. Even in the US this is true. I have disputed that this is true in the US and Australia where we have longer term records.
"It is likely that there have been statistically significant increases in the number of heavy precipitation events (e.g., 95th percentile) in more regions than there have been statistically significant decreases, but there are strong regional and subregional variations in the trends." Which is the same point I made, i.e. about increasing 95th percentile "extreme" events, earlier in this thread.
Where are you getting this statement from? SR15 is the most recent IPCC report I have been using. I don't see it in there. Where are you getting that heavy means 95th percentile?
- Ron keeps ignoring that the drying across portions of Australia is the most large-scale change in rainfall since national records began in 1900. It's not a so called regional drought, it's a long term trend resulting from climate change.
Further, this is what the SR15 has to say on drought globally:
"The IPCC AR5 assessed that there was low confidence in the sign of drought trends since 1950 at the global scale, but that there was high confidence in observed trends in some regions of the world, including drought increases in the Mediterranean and West Africa and drought decreases in central North America and northwest Australia (Hartmann et al., 2013; Stocker et al., 2013). AR5 assessed that there was low confidence in the attribution of global changes in droughts and did not provide assessments for the attribution of regional changes in droughts (Bindoff et al., 2013a)."
- Ron's joannenova Australia argument failed to include the latest 2018-2019 heatwaves which have since superseded pre-1950 heatwaves in scope and affected area. It was also the hottest summer on record for New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, which was 1.35 °C above its previous record. South Australia and Tasmania had their second-hottest summers on record, and Queensland its third-hottest.
- Ron's Australia's fires are not getting worse "theconversation" article is from 2013 and does not include the unprecedented drought and fires that have happened since.
- Contrary to Ron's “indisputable facts,” the point about Atlantic hurricane activity increasing is simply the fact that latest 2018/2019 research says the proportion of the highest hurricane intensity significantly increased in the Atlantic so we'll have to see if that tips the balance in subsequent consensus reports.
- Ron's Western US., per his own assessment, is in fact outdated. Because there are more fires and those fires are larger:Over the past six decades, there has been a steady increase in the number of fires in the western U.S. In fact, the majority of western fires—61 percent—have occurred since 2000.
Those fires are also burning more acres of land. The average annual amount of acres burned has been steadily increasing since 1950. The number of megafires—fires that burn more than 100,000 acres (156 square miles)—has increased in the past two decades. In fact, no documented megafires occurred before 1970.
https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2830/s...he-western-us/
Further, as discussed repeatedly, it isn't possible to isolate climate's role in wildfires compared to other factors like suppression, invasive species, population growth, infrastructure, etc. But we do know that Western US fires have not gotten worse when looked at over a longer timescale.
-
11-28-2019, 10:27 PM #2664Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
11-28-2019, 10:30 PM #2665Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
11-28-2019, 10:53 PM #2666
I kinda wish I had never called anything terrible in my whole life so I could’ve saved it for when ron said he refuted that bunch of things haven't happened with "indisputable facts" on the previous page and then said "I have never disputed" those things happening on this page.
It's a mountain of lies and feigned ignorance from ron.
-
11-28-2019, 11:15 PM #2667Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
This is dishonest. When have you ever seen me claim that heatwaves haven't been increasing since 1950? I have always emphasized long term data when talking about heatwaves.
The classic cop-out, but that type of talk does make your lackeys foam at the mouth, so well played.
-
11-29-2019, 08:03 AM #2668
-
11-29-2019, 08:15 AM #2669
He was but couldn't handle her alarmist clock waking him up all the time. He tried to tell her that nobody gets fired for not showing up at work on time.. Time is all a myth manufactured by the clock makers to scare the general public in to conforming to un necessary temporal norms.
Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!
-
11-30-2019, 10:46 AM #2670
"Countries from Siberia to Australia are burning: the age of fire is the bleakest warning yet"
"On any day, between 10,000 and 30,000 bushfires burn around the planet.
"Realms as diverse and distant as Siberia, Amazonia, Indonesia, Australia and California are aflame. The advent of “the age of fire” is the bleakest warning yet that humans have breached boundaries we were never meant to cross."
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...st-warning-yet
-
11-30-2019, 11:22 AM #2671
The number of major fire years, in which more than a million acres burned, has also increased in Alaska, says Rupp. Although there were only eight major fire years from 1950 to 1989, from 1990 to 2018 there were 11 years in which more than a million acres burned.
https://time.com/5657188/alaska-fire...limate-change/
-
11-30-2019, 12:14 PM #2672Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
>>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<
-
11-30-2019, 01:04 PM #2673
Your initial assessment wasn't wrong because ron's tactics are an insult, too. Among the more insidious games ron plays is feigning ignorance about previously discussed topics.
For example, on the previous page ron asked "Where are you getting that heavy [extreme rainfall] means 95th percentile?" but the definition of rainfall two or three standard outside the norm for a given time period was discussed at length earlier, all with the typical back-and-forth that is characteristic of these discussions.
And again, Ron repeatedly asked, "How in the world is it not a regional drought, when it only in one region of Australia? Since rainfall rates in Australia haven't decreased despite this drought, that means other regions must be receiving more rainfall" or describing it as a"small regional trend" when the question was already asked and answered.
Rainfall across south and eastern and southwestern Australia has declined long term while rainfall has increased across parts of northern Australia. So answer is, unlike regional drought in the past, per the discussion 3-4 pages ago, Anthropogenic long term warming is the most important driver of changing climate patterns in Australia. In other words, it's like asking how can the American West be drying when rainfall is increasing in the American Northeast?
Those are just two of the many, many examples of ron's attempts to poison the well. It's asking the same questions over and over without caring about the answers, or making the same arguments from the beginning over and over even though those arguments were debunked or updated.
Skeptics don't have to accept the answers or the updated information but pretending the questions haven't been answered or the discussion hasn't been elucidated is an insult both to the individual and to the community as whole.
-
11-30-2019, 01:54 PM #2674
My assessment was that he couldn't read graphs, so no real point in engaging.
Props to MV for taking the time.Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
>>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<
-
11-30-2019, 05:53 PM #2675Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
I know we have discussed rainfall, but I do not recall ever having a discussion where we determined that 'heavy' means 95th percentile. I'm not sure what your point is anyway because I have never denied that rainfall has been increasing, I've taken issue with 'extreme' rainfall increasing. You seem to believe that heavy = extreme.
And again, Ron repeatedly asked, "How in the world is it not a regional drought, when it only in one region of Australia? Since rainfall rates in Australia haven't decreased despite this drought, that means other regions must be receiving more rainfall" or describing it as a"small regional trend" when the question was already asked and answered.
Rainfall across south and eastern and southwestern Australia has declined long term while rainfall has increased across parts of northern Australia. So answer is, unlike regional drought in the past, per the discussion 3-4 pages ago, Anthropogenic long term warming is the most important driver of changing climate patterns in Australia. In other words, it's like asking how can the American West be drying when rainfall is increasing in the American Northeast?
To further enforce the realities of natural climate variability with relation to droughts, California experienced a 180 year drought and a 240 year drought within the past 1300 years. And yet, the recent small drought in California was being blamed on CO2. Imagine if that happened today!
https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/...cientists-say/
Those are just two of the many, many examples of ron's attempts to poison the well. It's asking the same questions over and over without caring about the answers, or making the same arguments from the beginning over and over even though those arguments were debunked or updated.
Skeptics don't have to accept the answers or the updated information but pretending the questions haven't been answered or the discussion hasn't been elucidated is an insult both to the individual and to the community as whole.
Bookmarks