Arcadia Discussion Zone

Wombat
I have been waiting for somebody to argue against climate change and global warming
and I appreciate your articles and research

I'm just gathering knowledge and articles on this very serious topic
I don't know who is right or wrong here because we are only given information which tends to be biased one way or the other

I do know
this year

Continental U.S. breaks heat record in first half of 2012
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-09/business/sns-rt-us-climate-usa-heatbre86811q-20120709_1_heat-record-warm-records-corn-crop

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/09/12643016-feeling-the-heat-first-half-of-2012-is-warmest-on-record?lite

The trees are all dying here in America from Forest fires

I hope you are right Wombat I do
if that is the case we have nothing to worry about and all this nonsense will prove the science community has been corrupted terribly

Who do we trust?
If your wrong Wombat
God help us
we are headed to a great extinction
like I said I hope your right and I am wrong

lovuian I’m not arguing:
In relation to global warming I have pointed out on at least two previous occasions on this thread (go back to 2009 when you started it and you’ll see) that I accept the IPCC’s assessment that the Global Average Temperature Anomaly (GATA) has increased 0.74C° + or - 0.18C° over the period 1905 to 2005.

Similarly, in relation to climate change I have always accepted that the climate changes. Currently we are in a long-term warming period that commenced at the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA) circa 1850. As a lover of history (corroborated by your other posts on this forum) you would know that the LIA extended from C16th to C19th or from about 1550 to 1850.

The reason I post on this thread of yours is to counter those who believe that the world is undergoing a Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (the Alarmists). These people are misusing science and have a number of motivations for doing so.

The Alarmists base so much of their belief system on the product of climate models; of which there any many. It also suits them to believe that “the science is settled”. If it’s settled why do they need so many models? One or two should be enough. If it’s settled, why do they continue to spend $billions on climate “science” worldwide?

As it stands, the many predictions of the multitude of climate models fail to be supported by the empirical evidence. The difficulty is that since the models seek to predict the future, we have to await the arrival of that future to see how wrong they are. Well, they’ve been at their global warming hypothesis now for some 25 years, at least, and what they’ve predicted just hasn’t happened. There are dozens of solid analyses of these failures available on the web. It started with global cooling (another Ice Age) over 40 years ago and shifted to global warming when they couldn’t ignore that the empirical evidence was not supporting their global cooling beliefs.

So what is happening?

Well the world is warming slowly. Very slowly. We are coming out of the LIA and have been for 150 years or so. The long-term warming trend is probably similar to that which the IPCC’s 100 year GATA figure suggests (0.74C° +- 0.18C°). However, over that period it appears that there are high and low shorter-term variations or multi-decade oscillations (MDOs) around the long-term trend. It’s one of those MDOs (a +ve one) that the Alarmists have focussed on over the last 20 years or so, without looking at the long-term context. Previously, under their global cooling hypothesis, they were focussed on an MDO that had a –ve.

Perhaps this is best shown by this graph:


The figure shows that the linear trend between 1880 and 2000 is a continuation of
recovery from the LIA. It shows also the predicted temperature rise by the IPCC after 2000.
Another possibility is also shown, in which the recovery from the LIA would continue to 2100,
together with the superposed multi-decadal oscillation. This possible progress beyond the peak
of an oscillation could explain the halting of the warming after 2000. The observed temperature
in 2008 is shown by a red dot with a green arrow.

Syun-Ichi Akasofu. Two Natural Components of the Recent Climate Change. International Arctic Research Center. (University of Alaska Fairbanks, 2009). p 7.

As to being I beg to differ. A warmer climate has many benefits and little downside. The one you need to be worried about from a survival perspective is the alternative – another Ice Age.

Oh, and the reason the trees are dying from forest fires has more to do with an increase in the number of pyromaniacs than with the gentle global warming that is being observed. After all, it is summer in the northern hemisphere and it has always got hot in summer. It’s called weather. Hot weather.

Regards to all

Wombat.

I always appreciate Wombat your posts and hearing the other side
Thank you

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/13/us/midwest-drought/index.html?imw=Y

Drought stretches across America, threatens crops
The costs of America's worst drought in 24 years is obvious to Villwock, who has been farming for four decades. They are not so apparent to American consumers -- at least, not yet.

But down the line, people are certain to be paying more for food this year.

Authorities have declared more than 1,000 counties in 26 states as natural disaster areas.
As of Tuesday, 61% of land in the lower 48 states was experiencing drought conditions -- stretching from Nevada to South Carolina -- the highest percentage in the 12-year record of the U.S. Drought Monitor.

The average temperature was 52.9 degrees Fahrenheit, or 4.5 degrees above average, NOAA said on Monday. Twenty-eight states east of the Rockies set temperature records for the six-month period. A heat wave blistered most of the United States in June, with more than 170 all-time temperature records broken or tied during the month. On June 28 in Norton, Kan., for instance, the temperature reached 118 degrees, an all-time high. On June 26, Red Willow, Neb., set a temperature record of 115 degrees, eclipsing the 114-degree mark set in 1932.

lovuian says:

Question: What does that tell you?

Answer: 24 years ago they had an even bigger drought

Americans have been there before and it was even worse then. Otherwise this 2012 drought would be the biggest drought ever.

Did they survive last time? Yep.

Will they survive this time? Yep.

Just watch Obama roll out the barrel and help all those hog farmers who can't buy feed. Oops, that barrel is full of pork. Fancy that. How did that get in there and who paid for it?

Regards to all

Wombat.

Drought and flooding rains.

Remember this? 20 December 2009:



viewtopic.php?p=51194#p51194

Well here we are today, just on two and a half years later:



What happened?

It rained.

Regards to all

Wombat.

To Escape Rising Seas, Maldives President May Move His Entire Island Nation to Australia

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-castaways-consider-move-to-australia-20120106-1pobf.html

The Maldivian President, Mohamed Nasheed, said his government was considering Australia as a possible new home if the tiny archipelago disappears beneath rising seas.

''It is increasingly becoming difficult to sustain the islands, in the natural manner that these islands have been,'' he told the Herald in an interview in Male, the Maldives capital.

The highest point in the entire country is 2.4 metres above sea level, and already, 14 islands have had to be abandoned because of massive erosion by the sea.

This thread of yours lovuian will end up going the same way as so many of roscoes.

Have you read and thought about this issue? Please read point 2 here:

viewtopic.php?p=109887#p109887

Do you have any thoughts on it at all or are you just going to post references to poor quality newspaper articles that seek to mislead?

In relation to this article do you realize that Nasheed is a self obsessed dictator who is looking to tap into the billions of dollars that the foolish western governments are making available to the UN to fix a non-existent problem?

Why would anybody give him oxygen? Well the SMH does because it's a left wing rag, that is hell bent on supporting the incompetent and corrupt Australian Labor socialist government and their Green totalitarian comrades in the Australian federal parliament. The SMH is going broke, belly-up, because they have been unable to evolve their business model to the changed politico-economic environment. Accordingly, this sort of non-news (Nasheed, in the article, admits he's not spoken to any countries about what he's saying) is why nobody who has the capacity to think for themselves reads or buys the SMH any more.

There are any number of silly newspaper articles like this one. But why clog up your thread endlessly listing them?

I don't get it.

Regards to all

Wombat.

Is the Sydney Herald a silly newspaper? I didn't know that? I live in America so I don't know which newspapers are silly or not
I guess it depends on what POLITICAL side of the equation you are

Wombat are you denying that
this information in the article
[b]The Maldivian President, Mohamed Nasheed, said his government was considering Australia as a possible new home if the tiny archipelago disappears beneath rising seas.

''It is increasingly becoming difficult to sustain the islands, in the natural manner that these islands have been,'' he told the Herald in an interview in Male, the Maldives capital.

The highest point in the entire country is 2.4 metres above sea level, and already, 14 islands have had to be abandoned because of massive erosion by the sea.
To Escape Rising Seas, Maldives President May Move His Entire Island Nation to Australia

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-castaways-consider-move-to-australia-20120106-1pobf.html


If this information is incorrect I apologize because I obtained it from the Sydney Herald Newspaper ...the silly one
I'm so sorry

As for Roscoe
I believe you and him are in agreement on this issue
I'll let Roscoe answer for himself on the issue

This information is from CNN News
and I admit they are a silly newspaper too

Do I have personal opinion on the issue ? I can honestly answer I don't know and as a result that is why I am placing the information
on this thread for people who like me who want to explore this question

I know the one point of view that this is all natural
like you pointed out Wombat one day we have a drought and the next day we have a flood

point taken

then there is another point that the climate is changing causing sea level rise and the melting of the ice at the Poles
and causing islands to be overcome by the rising seas like the Maldives

I'm just trying to find out the TRUTH Wombat
and that is why I enjoy seeing your information

Is this your point two Wombat?
It is based on a letter by Nils -Axel Morners observation and his reprimand to the President of the Maldives on scaring his people on the rising sea levels


Now this shows the ingenuity of man
Maldives To Fight Rising Sea Levels With Floating Islands

The Maldives government and Dutch Docklands/Dutch Watervalley just signed an agreement today to develop several floating facilities for the islands, including a convention center and golf courses. Designed by architect Koen Olthuis of Waterstudio.NL, the people who brought you the Citadel floating apartment complex and these amazing floating homes, the renderings for the amphibious mini-cities appear depict star-shaped, tiered islands with indoor spaces hidden under lush green-roof terraces, complete with interior pools and beaches.

http://inhabitat.com/maldives-to-fight-rising-sea-levels-with-floating-islands/

lovuian says:
What rising sea levels lov? You are starting to sound like roscoe. You don't read the material, or you don't want to understand what it is saying and you then, somewhat disingenuously, repeat the assertion without providing any scientific evidence whatsoever. Surely one Forumite using that strategy is enough?

I ask you: give us your scientific evidence that supports your assertion that the sea level around the Maldives is rising. If you don't have any then please stop your disingenuous spreading of untruths.

Until you do that this discussion is not worth the candle.

You ask me whether I deny the article says:
You're playing games. Let me confirm for you that's what your article says.

However, it is not evidence of sea level rise in the Maldives. What it is evidence of is lazy journalism by the SMH which has just cut and pasted Nasheed's press release or, alternatively, just parroted his propaganda for the benefit of its shrinking, left-wing, inner urban, Latte sipping, political correct, unthinking supporters of the climate change fraud.

I'm surprised that somebody like you with the critical thinking capacities that you exhibit more generally in other posts and threads have been taken in by it.

And finally, you seek to insult me. I'm not into trading insults but when you say things like.........
......I question the sincerity of your assurances that you are......
I am not in agreement with roscoe on this issue. You need to read what he has said, and omitted to say, much more carefully than you appear to, if that is your opinion.

See if you can find where he says this:
Quite possibly you don't understand what that means. Well, if you are going to persist with this thread try to understand that bit of the issue, at least.

And while you're into a bit of in depth study, lovuian, see if you can recall who said this and what it means for the Maldives:

"No other work of mine was begun in so deductive a spirit as this; for the whole theory was thought out on the west coast of S. America before I had seen a true coral reef. I had therefore only to verify and extend my views by a careful examination of living reefs. But it should be observed that I had during the two previous years been incessantly attending to the effects on the shores of S. America of the intermittent elevation of the land, together with the denudation and deposition of sediment. This necessarily led me to reflect much on the effects of subsidence, and it was easy to replace in imagination the continued deposition of sediment by the upward growth of coral. To do this was to form my theory of the formation of barrier-reefs and atolls.”

Regards to all

Wombat.

lovuian says:
Well, interesting but there seems to be a discrepancy on that. See here:

http://www.almanac.com/weather/history/ ... 2012-06-28

Doesn't that give the maximum for Norton on that day as 111.0°F?

And then, of course, if you check this report against the NOAA National Climate Data Centre's records lov. You might be surprised what you find.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/searchrecs.php

Click on the state and see the the truth.

To help you along, this is what I found to be their record of extreme temperatures in Nebraska and Kansas.

While I’m not familiar with USA state abbreviations, presumably KS is Kansas and NE is Nebraska.

Kansas Maximum Temperature
Fredonia 121°F July 18, 1936

The record is held by Fredonia (+ others) not Norton; 3F° greater for the State.

Nebraska Maximum Temperature
Geneva 118°F July 15, 1934

Here the record is held by Geneva (+ others) not Red Willow; again 3F° greater.

I'd be interested in your reading of this lov.

And your interpretation as to the accuracy of your report, along with the discrepancy between the two.

Regards to all

Wombat.

I'm so sorry Wombat I didn't mean to insult you



It was you Wombat who brought up that this thread would go the way of Roscoe's threads



I'm sorry that you feel that I insulted you that was not my intention

OK lov, I've had my say. Thanks for the clarification. Let's move on.

How do you account for the discrepancies in the temperature readings that I have pointed out immediately above your last post?

I am interested in your take on this.

Regards to all

Wombat.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the temperature of the world’s oceans reached a new high in July. The ocean’s surface temperature peaked at 63.1 degrees Fahrenheit, besting the old record — set just the month before.

Ocean surface temperatures affect the size and power of hurricanes.

Last September, for the first time in recorded history the North Pole became an island. Ever-rising water temperatures melted the ice that has always connected the landmass to northern Canada and Russia

the Maldives has a bigger problem drinking water for their population
they don't have any

which is another side of the coin

Wombat give me a few minutes to look it over and I'll get back with you on it ok

Wombat
I think you spotted an error in CNN reporting
You are right from your sources Norton Kansas did not reach 118 degrees it only hit 111 degrees

but I believe CNN did not report the correct name of the real record breaker that it was Norton DAM that hit 118 degrees or according to NOAA 113 degrees

this is from the Christian Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0629/Death-Valley-heat-in-Kansas-How-the-end-of-June-got-so-hot


Death Valley heat in Kansas? How the end of June got so hot.

Norton Dam, Kan., hit 118 F. on Thursday, and 32 communities from Colorado to Indiana just posted their highest temperatures ever. Forecasters say back-to-back La Niñas are partly to blame.

Norton Dam, Kan., for instance, recorded an all-time record of 118 degrees F. on Thursday, two degrees above Death Valley's July average. The 118-degree reading shattered Norton Dam's previous record of 113 degrees F. – set just three days before.

this is from Fox News
http://fox4kc.com/2012/06/29/different-day-same-heat/
it also confirms Norton DAM as having the 118 degrees

You definitely are right Norton Kansas did NOT break their record
but using your source NOAA
I looked up the Month of June 2012 temperatures
this is so wild Wombat
according to this NOAA site
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/records/all-time/maxt/2012/06/00?sts
Norton Dam , Norton Kansas did break that 113 degree record with a 118 degree
and I went to check NOAA's june temps for just plain Norton on the page but it does not give me that one like the one you showed on your page
It does show all the record breakers for the month of June in the cities all over America Norton Dam broke their record as reported by Fox and Christian Monitor CNN is partly right Norton Dam is in the county of Norton

So Wombat
I can only thank you for having me investigate this simple record keeping by NOAA and the newspapers
Nobody seems to be able to give the correct information ...you can understand my frustration
and this source NOAA is your source and mine ...
the all time record breakers don't go by state but go by towns
I wouldn't have known this if you didn't push me
Yes there is a conspiracy going on

my next investigation is going to be into the sydney reporting that 14 islands have been sunk by rising seas in the Maldives
Wombat if you find me anything that says these 14 islands didn't sink and its a lie by the Maldives president
if fourteen islands have sunk that alone is evidence of rising sea levels
erosion is part of it and the Maldives built a sea wall around its capital
I'd appreciate it
Still searching for the Truth

I had to edit this because I thought NOAA fudged but it seems they did report the Norton Dam result of 118 breaking the record of 113
Your right Wombat Norton did not break their record but I believe CNN meant Norton DAM and the evidence is there that Norton DAM did break their records
the newspapers do atrocious reporting

U.S. All-Time Highest Max Temperature Records set in June 2012
U.S. Records
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center

Out of a possible 183,345 records: 86 (Broken) + 87 (Tied) = 173 Total

AP MONROE IN 39.13 -86.62 03893 ASOS 36 103.0°F 2012-06-28 102.0°F 1999-07-31
NORTON DAM NORTON KS 39.81 -99.94 145852 COOP 51 118.0°F 2012-06-28 113.0°F 2012-06-25

CNN did not write that it was Norton DAM that broke the record
here is the link
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/records/all-time/maxt/2012/06/00?sts

I read this really interesting report but I found that the data seems to be based on 1970's data and was done in 2003
or Wombat am I wrong?
the information I have read by scientists is the ice has melt faster than the models predicted
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2010-050

NASA Finds Warmer Ocean Speeding Greenland Glacier Melt
February 16, 2010

Glaciers in west Greenland are melting 100 times faster at their end points beneath the ocean than they are at their surfaces, according to a new NASA/university study published online Feb. 14 in Nature Geoscience. The results suggest this undersea melting caused by warmer ocean waters is playing an important, if not dominant, role in the current evolution of Greenland's glaciers, a factor that had previously been overlooked.

Researchers Eric Rignot and Isabella Velicogna, both of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., and the University of California, Irvine; along with colleague Michele Koppes of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, measured the undersea melting rates of four glaciers in central west Greenland in the summer of 2008. They deployed oceanographic equipment in the glacier fjords, sampling the water at various depths to measure ocean currents, temperature and salinity, along with the depth of the fjords. The researchers found the melt rates of the glaciers studied was 100 times larger under the ocean at their terminus points than that observed at the glacial surfaces.

Lovuian says:
Well, this is what Nils-Axel Mörner is reported to have said:

“In the year 2000 we started an international sea level project in the Maldives where several distinguished experts took part,” he said, and he had been on six of those expeditions. “There is no ongoing rise in the sea level at all and since 1970, it fell by about 20 cm and has remained quite stable for the last 30 to 40 years.” The team had investigated several different shore environments, including open coasts, rock cut platforms, sandy shores in erosion and such an overwhelming mass and quality of observational facts must outdo idle talk, he said, with reference to the IPCC reports".

http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy ... epage=true

There have been longitudinal studies done on the Maldives and Mörner has been part of most of them.

He says much the same thing in his evidence to the 2005 Select Committee on Economic Affairs of the Parliament of the United Kingdom:

"It is true that sea level rose in the order of 10-11 cm from 1850 to 1940 as a function of Solar variability and related changes in global temperature and glacial volume. From 1940 to 1970, it stopped rising, maybe even fell a little. In the last 10-15 years, we see no true signs of any rise or, especially, accelerating rise (as claimed by IPCC), only a variability around zero.”

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 12we18.htm

The thing about the Scientific Method lovuian is that if you establish the hypothesis it’s your responsibility to provide the empirical evidence in support of it. That’s science.

Neither Nasheed nor you (nor anybody else and certainly not the IPCC) has provided a skerrick of empirical evidence to support the hypothesis that the Maldives are being inundated. All the material that you point to contains Alarmists' predictions of some future possible outcome based on one or other of the multitude of IPCC used climate models. None of which has a track record of accuracy.

Finally, you need to read this analysis from a very reputable researcher at my Alma Mater:

http://www.climatescienceinternational. ... cle&id=312

......and then check out Figure 13 (scroll well down to the bottom) at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s paper on islands and sea levels here:

http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60101/IDO60101.200809.pdf

Do you see how stable those levels are over the past decade. It’s also worthwhile noting the variously large ranges not so long ago (circa the late 1990s), which didn’t cause catastrophic inundation either.

When the empirical evidence refuting Mörner's well regarded research is published in a peer reviewed paper in an appropriate scientific journal then we will be in a position to see if it supports the (drowning Maldives) hypothesis. At the moment the Null Hypothesis is the one that's supported by the empirical evidence.

Regards to all

Wombat.

Lovuian says:
Really?

Here’s three very recent studies that you might like to consider in the context of that statement.

1. Vecchi, G.A. and Knutson, T.R. (2011). Estimating annual numbers of Atlantic hurricanes missing from the HURDAT database (1878-1965) using ship track density. Journal of Climate 24: 1736-1746.

Vecchi and Knutson conducted an analysis of the characteristics of Atlantic hurricanes (tropical cyclones whose peak winds exceeded 33 m/s) for the period 1878-2008, and conclude that their results do not support the hypothesis that the warming of the tropical North Atlantic due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions has caused Atlantic hurricane frequency to increase.

2. Abbs. D. (2012). The Impact of Climate Change on the Climatology of Tropical Cyclones in the Australian Region. CSIRO Climate Adaptation Flagship Working paper 11.

Abbs predicts on the basis of her research that rising temperatures could halve the frequency of occurrence of tropical cyclones (TC) in Australia by 2100. It does, however, give some support to the question of increased TC intensity but on a significantly fewer number of TCs in total.

http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Struct ... F_pub.aspx

3. Maue. R.N. (2011) Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity. Geophys. Res. Lett.

Maue reports that tropical cyclone accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) has exhibited strikingly large global interannual variability during the past 40-years. In the pentad since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Additionally, the frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low.

Also see the earlier post on this thread

viewtopic.php?p=49703#p49703

I'd be interested to see the references for the research that you have accessed to support your statement quoted above?

Regards to all

Wombat.

this is Thomas Knutson of NOAA
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/tom-knutson-homepage
NOAA State of the Science Fact Sheet on "Atlantic Hurricanes, Climate Variability, and Global Warming" (May 2012)



It is premature to conclude that human activities--and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming--have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet properly modeled (e.g., aerosol effects).
Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.
There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the numbers of very intense hurricanes in some basins—an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm numbers is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical storms.
Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes, with a model-projected increase of about 20% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center.


He says Wombat it is PREMATURE to say it is due to human activities ...but he does say That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet properly modeled (e.g., aerosol effects).

He leaves the door open to the possibility

He has the grafts and states in his report
The world Meterological team concluded
that globally by the 21st century
greenhouse warming would like cause
the number of cyclones or hurricanes to remain at current levels or decrease
by up to one third
the intensity of the cyclones to increase by 10%
stormfall rain rates to increase by 20%

It has to do with the AMO which is warmer ocean temperatures cause increased hurricane activity
this is the 2012 report
He is the same source as yours below

1. Vecchi, G.A. and Knutson, T.R. (2011). Estimating annual numbers of Atlantic hurricanes missing from the HURDAT database (1878-1965) using ship track density. Journal of Climate 24: 1736-1746.


Uber-meteorologist and former NOAA Hurricane Hunter (!) discussed some of the remarkable records the 2010 season has already set, on his WunderBlog yesterday:

The Atlantic hurricane season of 2010 kicked into high gear this morning, with the landfall of Tropical Storm Karl in Mexico, and the simultaneous presence of two Category 4 hurricanes in the Atlantic, Igor and Julia. Tropical Storm Karl’s formation yesterday marked the fifth earliest date that an eleventh named storm of the season has formed. The only years more active this early in the season were 2005, 1995, 1936 and 1933.

This morning’s unexpected intensification of Hurricane Julia into a Category 4 storm with 135 mph winds has set a new record–Julia is now the strongest hurricane on record so far east. When one considers that earlier this year, Hurricane Earl became the fourth strongest hurricane so far north, it appears that this year’s record SSTs [sea surface temperatures] have significantly expanded the area over which major hurricanes can exist over the Atlantic.

This morning is just the second time in recorded history that two simultaneous Category 4 or stronger storms have occurred in the Atlantic.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/09/16/206740/2010-hurricane-season-records-jeff-masters-global-warming/?mobile=nc

here is an Emmanuel statement
It has been asserted (for example, by the NOAA National Hurricane Center) that the recent upturn in hurricane activity is due to a natural cycle, e.g. the so-called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (“AMO”). The new results by Emanuel (Fig. 2) argue against this hypothesis being the sole explanation: the recent increase in SST (at least for September as shown in the Figure) is well outside the range of any past oscillations. Emanuel therefore concludes in his paper that “the large upswing in the last decade is unprecedented, and probably reflects the effect of global warming.” However, caution is always warranted with very new scientific results until they have been thoroughly discussed by the community and either supported or challenged by further analyses. Previous analysis of the AMO and natural oscillation modes in the Atlantic (Delworth and Mann, 2000; Kerr, 2000) suggest that the amplitude of natural SST variations averaged over the tropics is about 0.1-0.2 ºC, so a swing from the coldest to warmest phase could explain up to ~0.4 ºC warming.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/09/hurricanes-and-global-warming/

Like I said Wombat ..."I don't know the answer" and I don't think they do either

Lovuian says;

Exactly.

But it's never too early for the Alarmists and their unthinking journalist drones in the MSM though is it? You know, like the Sydney Morning herald (SMH).

And it's never too early for the socialist governments to fall over themselves seeking to put a tax on Carbon Dioxide.

Nor too early for the likes of GE and Goldman Slacks to tap into the Billions of dollars that are traded on the fraudulent Carbon Market.

Nor for the like of the Nasheeds and their ilk, all on the UN drip feed, to create ways to exploit the West's gullibility.

Nor is it too early for the Chinese to find alternative power sources to coal, the export of which the Australian Government encourages so that it can put a "super-profits tax" on the coal miners. Who gives a red rat's bum about the CO2 that is generated by the Chinese from the Australian coal they buy? Not our socialist green labor government, that's for sure.

But please don't get me started on the hypocrisy that surrounds this fraud, lovuian.

Regards to all

Wombat.

You know Wombat
I sat in on a meeting where the Carbon tax and they were going to have a Carbon futures market ...like a stock market
I agree the carbon tax was a huge fraud

saw it for myself

but I'm not sure global warming or climate change is a fraud
I'm still working at it
Manhattan-Size Iceberg Breaks Away from Greenland Glacier
A massive iceberg larger than Manhattan has broken away from the floating end of a Greenland glacier this week, an event scientists predicted last autumn.

The giant ice island is 46 square miles (120 square kilometers), and separated from the terminus of the Petermann Glacier, one of Greenland's largest.

The Petermann Glacier last birthed — or "calved" — a massive iceberg two years ago, in August 2010. The iceberg that broke off and floated away was nearly four times the size of Manhattan, and one of the largest ever recorded in Greenland.
http://www.livescience.com/21643-iceberg-born-greenland.html

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/28/602151/bombshell-koch-funded-study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all-due-to-carbon-pollution/?mobile=nc

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study (BEST) is poised to release its findings next week on the cause of recent global warming.

UPDATE (9 pm): A NY Times op-ed by Richard Muller, BEST’s Founder and Scientific Director, has been published, “The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic.”

Here is the money graf:


CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

Yes, yes, I know, the finding itself is “dog bites man.” What makes this “man bites dog” is that Muller has been a skeptic of climate science, and the single biggest funder of this study is the “Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000).” The Kochs are the leading funder of climate disinformation in the world!


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic

By RICHARD A. MULLER

Published: July 28, 2012

Berkeley, Calif.

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.


http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/24jul_greenland/

Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt July 24, 2012: For several days this month, Greenland's surface ice cover melted over a larger area than at any time in more than 30 years of satellite observations. Nearly the entire ice cover of Greenland, from its thin, low-lying coastal edges to its two-mile-thick center, experienced some degree of melting at its surface, according to measurements from three independent satellites analyzed by NASA and university scientists.

On average in the summer, about half of the surface of Greenland's ice sheet naturally melts. At high elevations, most of that melt water quickly refreezes in place. Near the coast, some of the melt water is retained by the ice sheet and the rest is lost to the ocean. But this year the extent of ice melting at or near the surface jumped dramatically. According to satellite data, an estimated 97 percent of the ice sheet surface thawed at some point in mid-July.