2017 is the Second Warmest Year on Record

That quote is from AR4. Please bring yourself up to date.

 

Correlation does not imply causation.

 

Ah, so AR4 is wrong but AR5 is right?

 

AR5 clearly states that intensity is predicted to increase but frequency is not. However the intensity increase has not yet been observed. This is accurately and correctly documented by Roger Pielke Jr. in his book "The Rightful Place of Science - Disasters and Climate Change" for which he was attacked by the alarmist smear machine and forced out of global warming science. That is one of the most despicable collective acts of the leftist smear machine (lead by the intellectually dishonest ThinkProgress organization) ever documented. Sharyl Attkisson in her recent book "The Smear - How Shady Political Operatives Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote."

 

I noticed you didn't post anything from AR5 to backup your statement. I have looked at AR-5, and I am more than willing to research this issue further, because I am a scientist (BSEE). Here is AR5 info, which also shows your statement to be a lie.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf

It is also very likely that heat waves, defined as spells of days with temperature above a threshold determined from historical climatology, will occur with a higher frequency and duration, mainly as a direct consequence of the increase in seasonal mean temperatures.
...
Human discomfort, morbidity and mortality during heat waves depend not only on temperature but also specific humidity. Heat stress, defined as the combined effect of temperature and humidity, is expected to increase along with warming temperatures and dominates the local decrease in summer relative humidity due to soil drying.
...
At daily to weekly scales, a shift to more intense individual storms and fewer weak storms is projected (Seneviratne et al., 2012). At seasonal or longer time scales, increased evapotranspiration over land can lead to more frequent and more intense periods of agricultural drought.
....
By the end of the 21st century, the average amount of water vapour in the atmosphere could increase by 5 to 25%, depending on the amount of human emissions of greenhouse gases and radiatively active particles, such as smoke. Water will evaporate more quickly from the surface. Sea level will rise due to expansion of warming ocean waters and melting land ice flowing into the ocean.
....
Projected climate changes from simulations assessed in this report (shown schematically in FAQ 12.2, Figure 1) generally show an increase in precipitation in parts of the deep tropics and polar latitudes that could exceed 50% by the end of the 21st century under the most extreme emissions scenario. In contrast, large areas of the subtropics could have decreases of 30% or more. In the tropics, these changes appear to be governed by increases in atmospheric water vapour and changes in atmospheric circulation that further concentrate water vapour in the tropics and thus promote more tropical rainfall. In the subtropics, these circulation changes simultaneously promote less rainfall despite warming in these regions. Because the subtropics are home to most of the world’s deserts, these changes imply increasing aridity in already dry areas, and possible expansion of deserts.
....
When forced with anticipated increases in GHG concentrations, the majority of these studies show an intensification of the rainfall associated with the Indian summer monsoon....The net effect is nevertheless an increase of precipitation due to enhanced moisture transport into the Asian monsoon region.

And then there is the irreversiblity, which is discussed in detail.

The AR5 report defines a perturbed state as irreversible on a given time scale if the recovery time scale from this state due to natural processes is significantly longer than the time it takes for the system to reach this perturbed state (see Glossary). In that context, most aspects of the climate change resulting from CO2 emissions are irreversible, due to the long residence time of the CO2 perturbation in the atmosphere and the resulting warming (Solomon et al., 2009).

 

That's exactly what I said and exactly what Pielke Jr. has documented. The models predict increased intensity of climate variability (aka weather) but not increased frequency. I referenced his book - I'd suggest you read it.

 

Your author doesn't read very well. Higher frequency on 3 points, and this is just skimming the surface of the entire report.

It is also very likely that heat waves, defined as spells of days with temperature above a threshold determined from historical climatology, will occur with a higher frequency and duration, mainly as a direct consequence of the increase in seasonal mean temperatures.
...
Human discomfort, morbidity and mortality during heat waves depend not only on temperature but also specific humidity. Heat stress, defined as the combined effect of temperature and humidity, is expected to increase along with warming temperatures and dominates the local decrease in summer relative humidity due to soil drying.
...
At daily to weekly scales, a shift to more intense individual storms and fewer weak storms is projected (Seneviratne et al., 2012). At seasonal or longer time scales, increased evapotranspiration over land can lead to more frequent and more intense periods of agricultural drought.
....
By the end of the 21st century, the average amount of water vapour in the atmosphere could increase by 5 to 25%, depending on the amount of human emissions of greenhouse gases and radiatively active particles, such as smoke. Water will evaporate more quickly from the surface. Sea level will rise due to expansion of warming ocean waters and melting land ice flowing into the ocean.
....
Projected climate changes from simulations assessed in this report (shown schematically in FAQ 12.2, Figure 1) generally show an increase in precipitation in parts of the deep tropics and polar latitudes that could exceed 50% by the end of the 21st century under the most extreme emissions scenario. In contrast, large areas of the subtropics could have decreases of 30% or more. In the tropics, these changes appear to be governed by increases in atmospheric water vapour and changes in atmospheric circulation that further concentrate water vapour in the tropics and thus promote more tropical rainfall. In the subtropics, these circulation changes simultaneously promote less rainfall despite warming in these regions. Because the subtropics are home to most of the world’s deserts, these changes imply increasing aridity in already dry areas, and possible expansion of deserts.
....
When forced with anticipated increases in GHG concentrations, the majority of these studies show an intensification of the rainfall associated with the Indian summer monsoon....The net effect is nevertheless an increase of precipitation due to enhanced moisture transport into the Asian monsoon region.

And then there is the irreversiblity, which is discussed in detail.

The AR5 report defines a perturbed state as irreversible on a given time scale if the recovery time scale from this state due to natural processes is significantly longer than the time it takes for the system to reach this perturbed state (see Glossary). In that context, most aspects of the climate change resulting from CO2 emissions are irreversible, due to the long residence time of the CO2 perturbation in the atmosphere and the resulting warming (Solomon et al., 2009).

 

"Heat waves" based on what ?? A fixed datum in the past. There will be more warmer days than before due to global warming. That's not more frequent disasters.

Model predictions that local variations does not indicate greater global frequencies.

And again more precipitation per storm does not indicate more storm.

Instead of cherry picking do something to advance your knowledge on this subject. Global warming has been occurring since the mid 1800's - there is not evidence of any increase in global frequency or intensity as well.

 

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” – Upton Sinclair

 

Could...might...all weasel words. Still all based on models that cannot predict next month much less 100 years.

 

Now your argument reverted back to the present, as is evidenced by your last statement. Now that I have proven your false assertions about future effects, backed up by the IPCC, you shift your argument. And your 2nd last sentence is certainly true, but it doesn't bode well for flooding and droughts, both present-day and future.

I believe you're the one who is cherry picking. Read the excerpts. This is the world that you are willing to turn over to your chidlren and grandchildren.

 

Based on models that are never right. Real world trends discount the alarmist babble.

 

I have read the excerpts - and understood them as I've explained. The comment of the models shows that they don't predict the past and the assertions about the present are incorrect. You've proven nothing. And my statement is accurate concerning frequency and intensity.

 

This made me laugh. Cheers! When asked just to refer to one important source, you bluster. Get back to me when you're capable of more high powered comment on the topic.

 

It is amusing to see the lack of curiosity and initiative on display continuously with regard to global warming by the alarmists on this forum.

 

Its not amusing to see the dodge. Its too predictable after all.

 

It's clear who has neither the curiosity or initiative to become well informed.

What is your opinion on the value of the climate sensitivity to CO2 ??

 

Weird response. I've merely been curious on what you think is an important study. But if you want to hide, so be it. Get back to me when you're feeling more adventurous.

 

As suspected - you know nothing of the science. Of course not one alarmist that I (and others) have asked that question of has responded. A few know what the climate sensitivity to CO2 is but so far none have offered their fact based opinion.

 

Pretty obvious to the scientific world, and to me.

 

The non believers have facts and logic from science and history while the true believers have charts and graphs from true believer web sites.

1. Correlation between CO2 and global temperatures is clear – but only in some part of the world's climatic history – and the attribution of "cause and effect" was done backwards: temperatures seem to drive CO2 levels, and not the opposite as the IPCC and the "warmers" claim.
   
   
2. Correlation between solar cycles and temperatures on Earth have been proved beyond any doubt.
   
   
3. The trend toward warming is driven by another cause, and not by atmospheric CO2 levels, since carbon dioxide levels rose uniformely during 30 years between the years 1947-1977, mean global temperatures went their own course, totally ignoring carbon dioxide levels.
   
   
4. All this nonsense of man-made global warming through CO2 emissions are based in a huge amount of unknowns, ambiguities and uncertainties found in the so called General Circulation Models(GCM), an issue too well known as to be treated here. However, if you have an inquiring mind, or still have some doubts about their validity and usefulness, please read the excellent scientific paper by Dr. Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood W. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondriatev, and Eric Postmentier, “Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties,”.

 

Yeah we call those Hurricanes. I thought you guys said weather isnt climate change. Too funny.

 

Again with the "how to lie with statistics" and "graphsmanship" ?? Amazing.

 

Yes, the graph presented "cleverly" places the CO2 time series directly over the temperature series. It is done to imply a causal relationship by "faking" a correlation.

 

SOP from the cult