IPCC turns sceptic on cyclones, floods and droughts

[brenthutch 444]

Looks as if the "gold standard of peer reviewed science" has turned into climate deniers!

"IPCC AR5 draft shows almost complete reversal from AR4 on trends in drought, hurricanes, floods and is now consistent with scientific literature

IPCC AR5 Draft: “we have high confidence that natural variability dominates any AGW influence in observed/historical TC records”

Draft IPCC Ch2 bottom line on extremes: “generally low confidence that there have been discernable changes over the observed record”
on lack of trends in extremes, exceptions are trends seen in temperature extremes and regional precipitation (but not floods)

On XTCs “unlike in AR4, it is assessed here..there is low confidence of regional changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones”

Bottom line IPCC trop cyclones same as SREX: “low confidence that any reported long term increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust”

More IPCC draft Ch2 on trop cyclones: “current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency”

IPCC on trop cyclones “AR4 assessment needs to be somewhat revised with respect to the confidence levels associated with observed trends”

IPCC draft Ch2 on drought: “The current assessment does not support the AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in droughts”

More IPCC Ch2: “low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”

More IPCC draft report: Ch2: “there is currently no clear and widespread evidence for observed changes in flooding” except timing of snowmelt"

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ipcc_turns_sceptic_on_cyclones_floods_and_droughts/

[brenthutch 444]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2012/12/18/the-uns-global-warming-forecasts-are-performing-very-very-badly/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/18/chilling-climate-change-news/
More

[StreetScooby 5]

Having done a reasonable literature review of AGW in the not too distant past, I was quite impressed by the papers I found. It was very comforting to see serious work being done by people who clearly were scientists with no political agenda driving them. I figured something like this would happen, eventually.

That being said, I do firmly think that humans cannot go on dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. There are ways we can minimize that, such as nuclear power. Hopefully, rational adults will start driving this process, instead of greenies who can't even spell thermodynamics.

We are all engines of karma

[RonD1120 62]

I can't imagine the full negative impact on billvon and kallend this post will have. Oh, nevermind, they will simply deny it.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

I can't imagine the full negative impact on billvon and kallend this post will have. Oh, nevermind, they will simply deny it.

Right now they are under their beds crying, soon they will shake it off, give each other a big hug, console each other with the notion that at least their intentions were pure, and then, pick up their banners and lances, and march on to the next earth threatening "crisis". I am guessing plastics or overpopulation.

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Quote

I can't imagine the full negative impact on billvon and kallend this post will have. Oh, nevermind, they will simply deny it.

Right now they are under their beds crying, soon they will shake it off, give each other a big hug, console each other with the notion that at least their intentions were pure, and then, pick up their banners and lances, and march on to the next earth threatening "crisis". I am guessing plastics or overpopulation.

Most excellent!

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[lawrocket 3]

I disagree with your assessment of billvon and kallend. Indeed, I disagree with much of what kallend and billvon believe. But I do not think that either kallend or billvon are unreasonable people - not in anything. Indeed, they have damned good reasons for their beliefs and my exchanges with both of them are predicated on the idea that “reasonable minds can differ.”

I credit billvon and kallend with forcing me to actually study this stuff and begin to understand how it works. And doing so created far less certainty for me about what is going on. In fact, billvon can say that he predicted my movement. I started as a Stage 2 denier and have moved into the Stage 3 to Stage 4 range (my belief that earth is warming, human activities are contributory, but the human effect is mild and climate change will itself be negligible).

Neither are unreasonable. I greatly respect both of them. It doesn’t do any good to attack them like that.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[brenthutch 444]

I have accorded them no less respect than they have accorded me. That said, my post was not an attack, it was just a brief observation of the quixotic nature of their “save the world” world view.

[skinnay 0]

That god damn "save the world" view!

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

I disagree with your assessment of billvon and kallend. Indeed, I disagree with much of what kallend and billvon believe. But I do not think that either kallend or billvon are unreasonable people - not in anything. Indeed, they have damned good reasons for their beliefs and my exchanges with both of them are predicated on the idea that “reasonable minds can differ.”

I credit billvon and kallend with forcing me to actually study this stuff and begin to understand how it works. And doing so created far less certainty for me about what is going on. In fact, billvon can say that he predicted my movement. I started as a Stage 2 denier and have moved into the Stage 3 to Stage 4 range (my belief that earth is warming, human activities are contributory, but the human effect is mild and climate change will itself be negligible).

Neither are unreasonable. I greatly respect both of them. It doesn’t do any good to attack them like that.

You tend to take the high road, from my perspective, and I am sure they respect you and your opinion as well.

Me on the other hand, not so much. As a Right Wing Conservative Christian and retired substance abuse counselor with over 29 years of sobriety credited to Jesus Christ, I don't have street cred here.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[pchapman 280]

Interesting! This shows science does work as a process. It can't always give the right answer (and we are probably not there yet on this issue), but if done right, allows for opinions to change based on further evidence and analysis.

And it still isn't good for the extreme deniers who can't believe there's any chance of anything happening due to all the human activity, and wouldn't want any research into the possibility of effects.

(And RonD1120, I figure you have some street cred for doing substance abuse work -- a job helping people -- so you're not a stereotyped right winger who seemingly hates everyone unlike his own kind. )

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

You tend to take the high road, from my perspective, and I am sure they respect you and your opinion as well.

Not necessarily. It's where I appreciate billvon and kallend and quade. And kelpdiver. And Andy. And Wendy. Others. They will call me on it if I'm being a dick. Or unreasonable.

I've usually been high road but I am prone to deviation. I have too much respect for them to disagree with their assessments of me, personally.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[RonD1120 62]

Thank you.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[kallend 2,150]

Science, unlike religion, corrects its mistakes and refines its estimates.

None of the cherry picked quotes in any way disproves that the climate is being changed by human activity. All that's in dispute is the extent.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

Science, unlike religion, corrects its mistakes and refines its estimates.

None of the cherry picked quotes in any way disproves that the climate is being changed by human activity. All that's in dispute is the extent.

It is becoming more and more clear that the extent is negligible, and what small change there is, may be desirable. Too bad we didn’t know this before billions of dollars had been wasted on solutions to a non-problem.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

It is becoming more and more clear that the extent is negligible, and what small change there is, may be desirable. Too bad we didn’t know this before billions of dollars had been wasted on solutions to a non-problem.

It's reasonable to "deny" that proposed government solutions will do nothing to remotely address this issue, other than take more money away from us and give them ever increasing power over our individual lives.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,120]

>It is becoming more and more clear that the extent is negligible, and what small
>change there is, may be desirable.

So the changes are insignificant, and they are good.

Congratulations; you've managed to hit type I and type III denier at the same time. Now just add "and CO2 has nothing to do with it" and you've hit the denier trifecta.

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

>It is becoming more and more clear that the extent is negligible, and what small
>change there is, may be desirable.

So the changes are insignificant, and they are good.

Congratulations; you've managed to hit type I and type III denier at the same time. Now just add "and CO2 has nothing to do with it" and you've hit the denier trifecta.

Get with the new vernacular, yesterdays “denier” is todays visionary.

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

>It is becoming more and more clear that the extent is negligible, and what small
>change there is, may be desirable.

So the changes are insignificant, and they are good.

Congratulations; you've managed to hit type I and type III denier at the same time. Now just add "and CO2 has nothing to do with it" and you've hit the denier trifecta.

Will you at least concede that the latest reports out of the IPCC, that "gold standard of peer reviewed science" have move away from your position, and closer to mine?