Extremes

[Trakar]

Exactly, remind me to thank-you for playing..

The point was carried from a previous post where I opined that we should be able to MEASURE the effect of one or two degrees on storm formation and intensity.. Without all this primal dancing and magic incants.

So if you LOOK at the effect of a PDO or AMO where the ocean surface cyclically warms in Hurricane alley, it should show an OBVIOUS effect --- dontchathink.. And instead neither you or me can discern a seriously real effect from that experiment..

NOT FINDING a convincing cause/effect should give you some pause on this "Global Weirding" incarnation.

We need to KNOW what the effect of 1degC is on a thunderstorm or hurricane or low pressure area.. Seems like knowing the "extremes" would be so much more "scientific".

Completely irrelevant to the topic of discussion in this thread, and as you further illustrate, without merit or value in this thread's discussion. Not that I expect such would be a concern among those here with their political conspiracy theories to push. If you have noting to say about this thread's topic I will leave you to ramble about black helicopters and such amongst yourselves.

Not irrelevent at all.. In fact --- totally to the heart of the topic.. Did you get the message of Hansen's paper on "extreme weather"?

The theory goes that a small shift in the temp mean greatly amplifies the statistical probability of EVERY EVIL EVENT, including flying monkeys I suppose..

So if this is the theory, we should be able to find EXISTING ways to measure a temp mean shift on weather. Locally, Nationally, even INTERGALACTIC for that matter.

So I pop up the 1st chart I find on MAJOR hurricanes and the AMO.. And you tell me --- not bothering to engage your brains as to WHY this is relevent, that you find NO RELATIONSHIP implied in the TEMPERATURE MEAN SHIFT and frequency of occurrence of those major Atlantic storms..

Are you getting this yet? Has anyone studied surface temp mean changes and the INTENSITY LEVEL of tornadoes? Most probably.. Surface temp mean changes and the formation of HAIL? Possibly.. Why the fuck isn't there a RUSH ON to do the science thing here to open a NEW Global Weirding franchise with some scientific chest-pounding EXAMPLES?

The cynic in me says they've TRIED to put rational tests of convienient data to the theory and failed --- so you and i aren't hearing and WONT hear much to support the "extremes" bandwagon..

Gee -- if that's NOT the OP --- I apologize professor Doom..

Apology heard, though your rant, and what ever the little voices in your head are telling you about conspiracies and coverups, are still off topic and unrelated to the OP, which is not about what is causing extreme weather, but rather how we adapt ourselves and our society to the increasing burdens that increasing extreme weather events are having upon us.

 

[Trakar]

Then enlighten us. Present us with something MEASURABLE which supports your claim.

What claim would that be?

You claim the climate is experiencing wider and wilder extremes. Back it up with a measurable list of events that supports your claim.

Please specifically reference and link to the post where I stated this, and exactly what type of list you would accept as supporting my linked statement.

 

[westwall]

What claim would that be?

You claim the climate is experiencing wider and wilder extremes. Back it up with a measurable list of events that supports your claim.

Please specifically reference and link to the post where I stated this, and exactly what type of list you would accept as supporting my linked statement.

Does playing dumb really work for you in the real world? Here's your OP. Did you even read it? I highlighted the relevant passage.

Now back up the claim with measurable metrics. That's called science. If it can't be measured it isn't science.



"Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation
Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Extreme weather and climate events, interacting with exposed and vulnerable human and natural systems, can lead to disasters. This Special Report explores the challenge of understanding and managing the risks of climate extremes to advance climate change adaptation. Weather- and climate-related disasters have social as well as physical dimensions. As a result, changes in the frequency and severity of the physical events affect disaster risk, but so do the spatially diverse and temporally dynamic patterns of exposure and vulnerability.
Some types of extreme weather and climate events have increased in frequency or magnitude, but populations and assets at risk have also increased, with consequences for disaster risk. Opportunities for managing risks of weather- and climate-related disasters exist or can be developed at any scale, local to international. Some strategies for effectively managing risks and adapting to climate change involve adjustments to current activities. Others require transformation or fundamental change."

 

[Trakar]

You claim the climate is experiencing wider and wilder extremes. Back it up with a measurable list of events that supports your claim.

Please specifically reference and link to the post where I stated this, and exactly what type of list you would accept as supporting my linked statement.

Does playing dumb really work for you in the real world? Here's your OP. Did you even read it? I highlighted the relevant passage.

Now back up the claim with measurable metrics. That's called science. If it can't be measured it isn't science.



"Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation
Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Extreme weather and climate events, interacting with exposed and vulnerable human and natural systems, can lead to disasters. This Special Report explores the challenge of understanding and managing the risks of climate extremes to advance climate change adaptation. Weather- and climate-related disasters have social as well as physical dimensions. As a result, changes in the frequency and severity of the physical events affect disaster risk, but so do the spatially diverse and temporally dynamic patterns of exposure and vulnerability.
Some types of extreme weather and climate events have increased in frequency or magnitude, but populations and assets at risk have also increased, with consequences for disaster risk. Opportunities for managing risks of weather- and climate-related disasters exist or can be developed at any scale, local to international. Some strategies for effectively managing risks and adapting to climate change involve adjustments to current activities. Others require transformation or fundamental change."

You accuse me of "playing dumb" and yet, you link to the OP and highlight a statement that does not say what you claimed I was asserting.

"Some types of extreme weather and climate events have increased in frequency or magnitude, but populations and assets at risk have also increased, with consequences for disaster risk."

Is not the same as what you asserted that I stated:

"the climate is experiencing wider and wilder extremes."

Now that I know exactly what it is you are seeking an answer to it is even more clear that you did not look at the evidences already provided. So, once again, what type of evidence for the linked statement, would you accept as supporting what I actually stated?

 

[SSDD]

Not irrelevent at all.. In fact --- totally to the heart of the topic.. Did you get the message of Hansen's paper on "extreme weather"?

The theory goes that a small shift in the temp mean greatly amplifies the statistical probability of EVERY EVIL EVENT, including flying monkeys I suppose..

So if this is the theory, we should be able to find EXISTING ways to measure a temp mean shift on weather. Locally, Nationally, even INTERGALACTIC for that matter.

So I pop up the 1st chart I find on MAJOR hurricanes and the AMO.. And you tell me --- not bothering to engage your brains as to WHY this is relevent, that you find NO RELATIONSHIP implied in the TEMPERATURE MEAN SHIFT and frequency of occurrence of those major Atlantic storms..

Are you getting this yet? Has anyone studied surface temp mean changes and the INTENSITY LEVEL of tornadoes? Most probably.. Surface temp mean changes and the formation of HAIL? Possibly.. Why the fuck isn't there a RUSH ON to do the science thing here to open a NEW Global Weirding franchise with some scientific chest-pounding EXAMPLES?

The cynic in me says they've TRIED to put rational tests of convienient data to the theory and failed --- so you and i aren't hearing and WONT hear much to support the "extremes" bandwagon..

Gee -- if that's NOT the OP --- I apologize professor Doom..

Are you seeing a trend here and on other threads? Us skeptics are asking for specifics regarding climate change; like how much temp change is due to man's CO2, or what specific changes a particular region would see given a specific increase in global mean temp, or you asking for specific effects a temperature change will have on weather events, and the alarmists are collapsing.

Vague nonsensical answers, even mor dancing and double talk than usual, claims that the challenges are meaningless, etc. it appears that the science is not only not settled, it really isn't science at all.

Actual science should at least be able to engage questions like that if not answer them all.

 

[westwall]

Please specifically reference and link to the post where I stated this, and exactly what type of list you would accept as supporting my linked statement.

Does playing dumb really work for you in the real world? Here's your OP. Did you even read it? I highlighted the relevant passage.

Now back up the claim with measurable metrics. That's called science. If it can't be measured it isn't science.



"Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation
Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Extreme weather and climate events, interacting with exposed and vulnerable human and natural systems, can lead to disasters. This Special Report explores the challenge of understanding and managing the risks of climate extremes to advance climate change adaptation. Weather- and climate-related disasters have social as well as physical dimensions. As a result, changes in the frequency and severity of the physical events affect disaster risk, but so do the spatially diverse and temporally dynamic patterns of exposure and vulnerability.
Some types of extreme weather and climate events have increased in frequency or magnitude, but populations and assets at risk have also increased, with consequences for disaster risk. Opportunities for managing risks of weather- and climate-related disasters exist or can be developed at any scale, local to international. Some strategies for effectively managing risks and adapting to climate change involve adjustments to current activities. Others require transformation or fundamental change."

You accuse me of "playing dumb" and yet, you link to the OP and highlight a statement that does not say what you claimed I was asserting.

"Some types of extreme weather and climate events have increased in frequency or magnitude, but populations and assets at risk have also increased, with consequences for disaster risk."

Is not the same as what you asserted that I stated:

"the climate is experiencing wider and wilder extremes."

Now that I know exactly what it is you are seeking an answer to it is even more clear that you did not look at the evidences already provided. So, once again, what type of evidence for the linked statement, would you accept as supporting what I actually stated?

OK, so in a OP that you titled EXTREMES, and then posted the drivel which I highlighted above, and then you come back and tell all of us that you didn't really post what you posted
or that we don't understand what it was that you posted, or whatever the excuse you'll come up with whenever we ask you for a measurable metric....because ...well that IS how science is done after all, you make a prediction and then we see how well your prediction worked....that IS how science works after all.

But no, your paradigm is different. In your paradigm you can post something and then run and flee when you are asked to provide even the most basic of measureable points. So, you have now totally entered the realm of fiction.

Good to know.

 

[flacaltenn]

Let's see a show of hands.. How many are in favor of remediating threats to society (from unstated and unqualified "EXTREMES" without discussing the projected magnitude or even possible causes of that effect?

Yeas _________ Nays _____________

Hey --- I'm pretty damn reasonable about this.. The OP says the problem is exaccerabated by poor urban planning for weather events. Let's drop the Catastrophic Global Warming hysteria and assume a NATURALLY RISING temperature..

I'm all in favor of remediating a 2degC rise in global temp over the next century..

Show of hands again???

Yeas _________ Nays _____________

 

[SSDD]

Let's see a show of hands.. How many are in favor of remediating threats to society (from unstated and unqualified "EXTREMES" without discussing the projected magnitude or even possible causes of that effect?

Yeas _________ Nays _____________

Hey --- I'm pretty damn reasonable about this.. The OP says the problem is exaccerabated by poor urban planning for weather events. Let's drop the Catastrophic Global Warming hysteria and assume a NATURALLY RISING temperature..

I'm all in favor of remediating a 2degC rise in global temp over the next century..

Show of hands again???

Yeas _________ Nays _____________

They can't even discuss what a 2 degree rise in global temp might look like. I have heard vague threats about disease vectors but upon looking I see that the average mean in my state is a hair over 55 and the average mean in Florida is a hair over 70. I have looked but can't find any plagues decimating Florida that may move north even though the difference in the mean here and the mean in Florida is a hell of a lot more than 2 degrees.

They won't talk about 2 degrees because if you look at it honestly, 2 degrees, or even 3 or 4 would be a boon and the pros would far outweigh the cons.

 

[skookerasbil]

Please specifically reference and link to the post where I stated this, and exactly what type of list you would accept as supporting my linked statement.

Does playing dumb really work for you in the real world? Here's your OP. Did you even read it? I highlighted the relevant passage.

Now back up the claim with measurable metrics. That's called science. If it can't be measured it isn't science.



"Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation
Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Extreme weather and climate events, interacting with exposed and vulnerable human and natural systems, can lead to disasters. This Special Report explores the challenge of understanding and managing the risks of climate extremes to advance climate change adaptation. Weather- and climate-related disasters have social as well as physical dimensions. As a result, changes in the frequency and severity of the physical events affect disaster risk, but so do the spatially diverse and temporally dynamic patterns of exposure and vulnerability.
Some types of extreme weather and climate events have increased in frequency or magnitude, but populations and assets at risk have also increased, with consequences for disaster risk. Opportunities for managing risks of weather- and climate-related disasters exist or can be developed at any scale, local to international. Some strategies for effectively managing risks and adapting to climate change involve adjustments to current activities. Others require transformation or fundamental change."

You accuse me of "playing dumb" and yet, you link to the OP and highlight a statement that does not say what you claimed I was asserting.

"Some types of extreme weather and climate events have increased in frequency or magnitude, but populations and assets at risk have also increased, with consequences for disaster risk."

Is not the same as what you asserted that I stated:

"the climate is experiencing wider and wilder extremes."

Now that I know exactly what it is you are seeking an answer to it is even more clear that you did not look at the evidences already provided. So, once again, what type of evidence for the linked statement, would you accept as supporting what I actually stated?

This is the currently most popular line of BS perpetuated by the climate OCD's.......

You go back 100"s of years and find extreme weather has always existed....same magnitude......same frequency. Just now, the k00ks have the 24 hour news cycle to use to their advantage to scare the shit out of the hopelessly duped of our society.

Chronology of Extreme Weather


Trakar.....I exist in here, not to spend one single second wasting my time trying to undo your compulsive habits. I'm in here always to reign on your parade of totally engineered falsehoods.

 

[skookerasbil]

For sure, anybody who buys the OCD climate crusaders line of shit are also highly likely to have a pair of these at home. All the hopelessly duped grab at least one pair in their lives off the late night cable barrage of stupid items everybody needs.

 

[skookerasbil]

Die große Tornadoflaute: Kein Zusammenhang zwischen Klimawandel und Tornadohäufigkeit | Die kalte Sonne


Oooooops. Shit like this is embarrassing for the k00ks. German scientists call it "The tornado doldrums!!!". LMAO.......real extreme!!!

 

[Trakar]

Let's see a show of hands.. How many are in favor of remediating threats to society (from unstated and unqualified "EXTREMES" without discussing the projected magnitude or even possible causes of that effect?

Yeas _________ Nays _____________

Hey --- I'm pretty damn reasonable about this.. The OP says the problem is exaccerabated by poor urban planning for weather events. Let's drop the Catastrophic Global Warming hysteria and assume a NATURALLY RISING temperature..

I'm all in favor of remediating a 2degC rise in global temp over the next century..

Show of hands again???

Yeas _________ Nays _____________

For the purposes of this thread's topic of discussion (and actually most of my threads over the last few weeks) "naturally occurring" or "man-made" forcing distinctions are irrelevant to the discussion of adaptation to an increasingly extreme weather prone state. The topic is the discussion of viable and acceptable adaptation measures and methodologies.

 

[westwall]

Let's see a show of hands.. How many are in favor of remediating threats to society (from unstated and unqualified "EXTREMES" without discussing the projected magnitude or even possible causes of that effect?

Yeas _________ Nays _____________

Hey --- I'm pretty damn reasonable about this.. The OP says the problem is exaccerabated by poor urban planning for weather events. Let's drop the Catastrophic Global Warming hysteria and assume a NATURALLY RISING temperature..

I'm all in favor of remediating a 2degC rise in global temp over the next century..

Show of hands again???

Yeas _________ Nays _____________

For the purposes of this thread's topic of discussion (and actually most of my threads over the last few weeks) "naturally occurring" or "man-made" forcing distinctions are irrelevant to the discussion of adaptation to an increasingly extreme weather prone state. The topic is the discussion of viable and acceptable adaptation measures and methodologies.

The topic has no basis in fact so is irrelevent to the human race. You have been unable to present a single example of extreme anything, so your base supposition is false.

 

[flacaltenn]

Let's see a show of hands.. How many are in favor of remediating threats to society (from unstated and unqualified "EXTREMES" without discussing the projected magnitude or even possible causes of that effect?

Yeas _________ Nays _____________

Hey --- I'm pretty damn reasonable about this.. The OP says the problem is exaccerabated by poor urban planning for weather events. Let's drop the Catastrophic Global Warming hysteria and assume a NATURALLY RISING temperature..

I'm all in favor of remediating a 2degC rise in global temp over the next century..

Show of hands again???

Yeas _________ Nays _____________

For the purposes of this thread's topic of discussion (and actually most of my threads over the last few weeks) "naturally occurring" or "man-made" forcing distinctions are irrelevant to the discussion of adaptation to an increasingly extreme weather prone state. The topic is the discussion of viable and acceptable adaptation measures and methodologies.

That's fine.. Let's save Lower Manhattan from storm surge.. How high do we need to build the walls? Let's move agri production.. How far do we need to move it?

OR --- are is the UN (it is a UN initiative aint it?) just interested in the check we're gonna write to them and the check we're gonna write to Paulau because ITS ALL OUR FUCKING FAULT ?????

First thing we need is a sponsoring org that not a circus of greedy whores..

 

[flacaltenn]

Trakar:

Lemme 1st say --- I'd love to discuss this with you.. I'm ALL FOR planning and engineering and catastrophe avoidance..

BUT -- Against my better judgement, I waded 5 pages into that 585 page IPCC report and guess what I found ????

YOU -- may think the OP doesn't assume a particular scientific basis for the "fixin up".. But the OP does.

I just didn't get to the Recommendations Section to find out how much we owe Tuvalu for flooding their island..

 

[Trakar]

Trakar:

Lemme 1st say --- I'd love to discuss this with you.. I'm ALL FOR planning and engineering and catastrophe avoidance..

BUT -- Against my better judgement, I waded 5 pages into that 585 page IPCC report and guess what I found ????

YOU -- may think the OP doesn't assume a particular scientific basis for the "fixin up".. But the OP does.

I just didn't get to the Recommendations Section to find out how much we owe Tuvalu for flooding their island..

well, I applaud you for at least feigning open-minded objectivity, until you could find something to shiver off the act of reasonable consideration. I wonder why you didn't include the caption to the graphic.

Figure SPM.1 |​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Illustration of the core concepts of SREX. The report assesses how exposure and vulnerability to weather and climate events determine impacts and the likelihood of disasters (disaster risk). It evaluates the influence of natural climate variability and anthropogenic climate change on climate extremes and other weather and climate events that can contribute to disasters, as well as the exposure and vulnerability of human society and natural ecosystems. It also considers the role of development in trends in exposure and vulnerability, implications for disaster risk, and interactions between disasters and development. The report examines how disaster risk management and adaptation to climate change can reduce exposure and vulnerability to weather and climate events and thus reduce disaster risk, as well as increase resilience to the risks that cannot be eliminated. Other important processes are largely outside the scope of this report, including the influence of development on greenhouse gas emissions and anthropogenic climate change, and the potential for mitigation of anthropogenic climate change. [1.1.2, Figure 1-1]​

But I guess that wouldn't support the "message" or hand-waving you are attempting to promote.

 

[flacaltenn]

OK -- fair enough. However I DID read the caption. And what you highlighted DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS the sentences directly above it..

It evaluates the influence of natural climate variability and anthropogenic climate change on climate extremes and other weather and climate events that can contribute to disasters ........

So we're gonna MITIGATE ASSUMING the current AGW theory, but we're not gonna propose STOPPING the CO2 engine of AGW???

I did read it.. Those are all weasel stating that the IPCC wants to move on to the UN Agenda without carrying the AGW baggage anymore. They just wanted these "sustainable" changes and the money to flow all along. And there's too much inertia and opposition and quite frankly,

THE CLIMATE AIN'T RIGHT for that now.. See -- the pun I made??

I was tempted to read on to find how much I owed, but I had other things to do..

 

[Trakar]

OK -- fair enough. However I DID read the caption. And what you highlighted DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS the sentences directly above it..

It evaluates the influence of natural climate variability and anthropogenic climate change on climate extremes and other weather and climate events that can contribute to disasters ........

So we're gonna MITIGATE ASSUMING the current AGW theory, but we're not gonna propose STOPPING the CO2 engine of AGW???

I did read it.. Those are all weasel stating that the IPCC wants to move on to the UN Agenda without carrying the AGW baggage anymore. They just wanted these "sustainable" changes and the money to flow all along. And there's too much inertia and opposition and quite frankly,

THE CLIMATE AIN'T RIGHT for that now.. See -- the pun I made??

I was tempted to read on to find how much I owed, but I had other things to do..

Making assertions that are contradicted by your own referenced sections and then with deliberate conflation misrepresenting what is clearly stated is simply disingenuous, or displaying an ignorance of contextual language application, either way they make the intelligent and considered discussion of issues, in this format, unproductive.

In context:

Figure SPM.1 |
Illustration of the core concepts of SREX. The report assesses how exposure and vulnerability to weather and climate events determine impacts and the likelihood of disasters (disaster risk). It evaluates the influence of natural climate variability and anthropogenic climate change on climate extremes and other weather and climate events that can contribute to disasters, as well as the exposure and vulnerability of human society and natural ecosystems. It also considers the role of development in trends in exposure and vulnerability, implications for disaster risk, and interactions between disasters and development. The report examines how disaster risk management and adaptation to climate change can reduce exposure and vulnerability to weather and climate events and thus reduce disaster risk, as well as increase resilience to the risks that cannot be eliminated. Other important processes are largely outside the scope of this report, including the influence of development on greenhouse gas emissions and anthropogenic climate change, and the potential for mitigation of anthropogenic climate change. [1.1.2, Figure 1-1]
​

 

[skookerasbil]

Trakar:

Lemme 1st say --- I'd love to discuss this with you.. I'm ALL FOR planning and engineering and catastrophe avoidance..

BUT -- Against my better judgement, I waded 5 pages into that 585 page IPCC report and guess what I found ????

YOU -- may think the OP doesn't assume a particular scientific basis for the "fixin up".. But the OP does.

I just didn't get to the Recommendations Section to find out how much we owe Tuvalu for flooding their island..

HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!


Of course the IPCC promotes something like that in the first 5 pages.......dummy. You are one of those people who walks into a tire store and thinks its a nice gesture for the tire company to put up a sign promoting the dangers of excessive tire wear.


Heres the huge problem with that chart s0n.........it would apply perfectly if it was made 500 years ago........dummy!!


Chronology of Extreme Weather



Make no mistake folks.....the IPCC exists for one purpose: to promote science that the UN can use to promote its redistributionist agenda. Period.......only those with the political IQ of a small soap dish don't recognize it.

 

[mamooth]

Make no mistake folks.....the IPCC exists for one purpose: to promote science that the UN can use to promote its redistributionist agenda. Period.......only those with the political IQ of a small soap dish don't recognize it.

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo ...

Skook, you're a retard. A gibbering moron. A brainwashed political cultist, bleating only what he's ordered to bleat. You have shit-for-brains. That would be why everyone is always pointing and laughing at you.

The other denialists, of course, are almost as stupid as skook. They just at least possess a smidgeon more brainpower, enough to understand that they need to downplay their batsheet crazy conspiracy kookery, lest they get laughed out of the room like Skook.