Natural climate swings contribute mor...

Natural climate swings contribute more to increased monsoon rainfall than global warming

There are 21 comments on the sciencedaily.com story from Mar 20, 2013, titled Natural climate swings contribute more to increased monsoon rainfall than global warming. In it, sciencedaily.com reports that:

Monsoon rainfall in the Northern Hemisphere impacts about 60% of the World population in Southeast Asia, West Africa and North America.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at sciencedaily.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
PHD

Overton, TX

#1 Mar 21, 2013
"These natural swings in the climate system must be understood in order to make realistic
"predictions"
of monsoon rainfall and of other climate features in the coming decades," says Wang. "We must be able to determine the relative contributions of greenhouse-gas emissions and of long-term natural swings to future climate change."

So they really don't know. More scientific science fiction.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#2 Mar 21, 2013
They really don't know. The processes they are speaking of didn't even have a name in 1977 when they were first observed.

Since that time a lot has been learned but not yet enough so that the variables can be used to determine future climate.

This is observational science of climate. Climate is a long term process, therefore will require long term observation before we begin to understand it.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#3 Mar 21, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
They really don't know. The processes they are speaking of didn't even have a name in 1977 when they were first observed.
Since that time a lot has been learned but not yet enough so that the variables can be used to determine future climate.
This is observational science of climate. Climate is a long term process, therefore will require long term observation before we begin to understand it.
Right on for deniers like you.

You don't know because science is not telling you. Get some science understanding.

Here's your ilk for fun:

LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#4 Mar 21, 2013
Intelligence test:

Does the statement "We must know the guilt of the accused before we pass sentence' imply that all accused are guilty?

If so, why have a trial?

Similarly, why have science if we just need the rampant stupidity and lack of reasoning skills of PHD and FF.
PHD

Overton, TX

#5 Mar 21, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Intelligence test:
Does the statement "We must know the guilt of the accused before we pass sentence' imply that all accused are guilty?
If so, why have a trial?
Similarly, why have science if we just need the rampant stupidity and lack of reasoning skills of PHD and FF.
Well than big mouth prove it. Show your peer reviewed published work!!! Sorry your confused with the scientific science fiction is your issue so deal with it. You’re a disgrace to the people that live in your Country.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#6 Mar 21, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Well than big mouth prove it. Show your peer reviewed published work!!! Sorry your confused with the scientific science fiction is your issue so deal with it. You’re a disgrace to the people that live in your Country.
My post doesn't need more than basic reasoning skills. Too bad you don't have them.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#7 Mar 21, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Intelligence test:
Does the statement "We must know the guilt of the accused before we pass sentence' imply that all accused are guilty?
If so, why have a trial?
Similarly, why have science if we just need the rampant stupidity and lack of reasoning skills of PHD and FF.
In observational science, it's the 'trial' that we need.
PHD

Overton, TX

#8 Mar 21, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
My post doesn't need more than basic reasoning skills. Too bad you don't have them.
Wrong big mouth prove it. Show your peer reviewed published work!!! Sorry your confused with the scientific science fiction.It is your issue so deal with it. You’re a disgrace to the people that live in your Country.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#9 Mar 22, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
In observational science, it's the 'trial' that we need.
The observations (field science) has been done over the last century or so. The trial was a trial of science and that concluded in about 2005 with the third IPCC report, which ended all serious dispute over AGW theory. The conclusions and details have only gotten stronger since. There is no longer ANY question of AGW, and only some question on exactly how this will affect the climate.

Otoh, ANY change in the global climate will be very costly. That conclusion only requires some small amount of common sense and the fact that so much of the modern infrastructure is designed for a stable climate that no longer exists. From flooding to storm damage to agricultural losses, we are now paying the price of the 'deniers' such as yourself and their war to keep the science from reaching the public.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#10 Mar 22, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
The observations (field science) has been done over the last century or so. The trial was a trial of science and that concluded in about 2005 with the third IPCC report, which ended all serious dispute over AGW theory. The conclusions and details have only gotten stronger since. There is no longer ANY question of AGW, and only some question on exactly how this will affect the climate.
Otoh, ANY change in the global climate will be very costly. That conclusion only requires some small amount of common sense and the fact that so much of the modern infrastructure is designed for a stable climate that no longer exists. From flooding to storm damage to agricultural losses, we are now paying the price of the 'deniers' such as yourself and their war to keep the science from reaching the public.
"a stable climate that no longer exists." A stable climate never did exist. Weather has always happened.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11 Mar 22, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
They really don't know. The processes they are speaking of didn't even have a name in 1977 when they were first observed.
Since that time a lot has been learned but not yet enough so that the variables can be used to determine future climate.
This is observational science of climate. Climate is a long term process, therefore will require long term observation before we begin to understand it.
Actually, they DO know. Like Less Hype says, the basics of AGW/CC have been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Action is needed NOW to reduce CO2 emissions. The longer we wait, the more difficult & expensive it will be.

We DO understand the basic variables. CO2 is the most important thermostat in the earth's climate.

Yes, climate is long-term, but we already HAVE long-term observations, because we can study the past. We can infer all kinds of aspects of climate in the past.

We have planetary emergency, but as James Hansen says, it isn't obvious. Natural variability obscures long-term changes. This is a good overall talk by Hansen:



This is Richard Alley explaining why CO2 is the main planetary thermostat (plus other things):

http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lec...
PHD

Overton, TX

#12 Mar 23, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, they DO know. Like Less Hype says, the basics of AGW/CC have been proven beyond all
"reasonable doubt".
Action is needed NOW to reduce CO2 emissions. The longer we wait, the more difficult & expensive it will be.
We DO understand the basic variables. CO2 is the most important thermostat in the earth's climate.
Yes, climate is long-term, but we already HAVE long-term observations, because we can study the past. We can
"infer"
all kinds of aspects of climate in the past.
We have planetary emergency, but as James Hansen says, it isn't obvious. Natural variability obscures long-term changes. This is a good overall talk by Hansen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =sJp3_DcN1i4XX
This is Richard Alley explaining why CO2 is the main planetary thermostat (plus other things):
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lec...
Beyon or not there is still doubt. This is know as scientific science fiction.
Infer:
1.conclude something from reasoning: to come to a conclusion or form an "opinion"
about something on the basis of evidence or reasoning
2.indicate something: to lead you necessarily to
"suppose"
or conclude something
3."imply" something: to imply or suggest something
Actually they really don't know.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#13 Mar 23, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
A stable climate never did exist. Weather has always happened.
And here we have an example of the posting of an idiot who cannot even recognize the absurdity of his comparing WEATHER with CLIMATE.

Climate does have a 'baseline' as well as a 'range' and therefore can become less 'stable' than prior years. Weather is 'what is now' and has no reference to any prior events. A clue for the obviously clueless.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#14 Mar 23, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
And here we have an example of the posting of an idiot who cannot even recognize the absurdity of his comparing WEATHER with CLIMATE.
Climate does have a 'baseline' as well as a 'range' and therefore can become less 'stable' than prior years. Weather is 'what is now' and has no reference to any prior events. A clue for the obviously clueless.
That's interesting, what is the "baseline of climate"?

So weather "has no reference to any prior events"? Then why do we keep statistics as to how many hurricanes happen in each year? Hurricanes are the result of weather. How about rain? Rainfall/precipitation rates have "no reference to any prior events"? Then how do we measure drought?

Weather is our daily observation of the result of all of the climate functions in play everyday. La Nina is a function of our climate. It's in play now more than the last 30 years of warming because the PDO is negative and solar energy is low. When the PDO is negative and solar energy is low, we get more frequent and more inpactful La Ninas.

Although La Ninas make weather, they are a part of a larger climate function that is cyclical in nature and has specific manifestations for specfic parts of the world. We can see the pattern of activity over long periods of time, that's when we call it climate. Climate, that which is most likely to happen when a specific set of variables are in place for an extended period of time.

You can't separate weather from climate any more than you can separate minutes from an hour.

Now back to the original question, what is the "baseline of climate".
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#15 Mar 23, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, they DO know. Like Less Hype says, the basics of AGW/CC have been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Action is needed NOW to reduce CO2 emissions. The longer we wait, the more difficult & expensive it will be.
We DO understand the basic variables. CO2 is the most important thermostat in the earth's climate.
Yes, climate is long-term, but we already HAVE long-term observations, because we can study the past. We can infer all kinds of aspects of climate in the past.
We have planetary emergency, but as James Hansen says, it isn't obvious. Natural variability obscures long-term changes. This is a good overall talk by Hansen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =sJp3_DcN1i4XX
This is Richard Alley explaining why CO2 is the main planetary thermostat (plus other things):
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lec...
I thought we agreed to disagree. I have no desire to engage in a conversation with you if when you discover you cannot prevail, you just start calling me a liar.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#16 Mar 23, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>to a denier:
And here we have an example of the posting of an idiot who cannot even recognize the absurdity of his comparing WEATHER with CLIMATE.
Climate does have a 'baseline' as well as a 'range' and therefore can become less 'stable' than prior years. Weather is 'what is now' and has no reference to any prior events. A clue for the obviously clueless.
With your technical language, you are driving deniers into a coma ...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#17 Mar 23, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought we agreed to disagree. I have no desire to engage in a conversation with you if when you discover you cannot prevail, you just start calling me a liar.
You ARE a liar. You're very clever & knowledgeable, especially compared to other deniers, but deniers are liars.

Who pays you? How does the oil money get to you? How much do they pay you?

You COULD tell the truth about those things, & show to all of us that you're not a liar. Come on, prove me wrong about that.
litesong

Everett, WA

#18 Mar 23, 2013
fetid feces face flip flopper fiend wrote:
there is still doubt.
There is no doubt that "fetid feces face flip flopper fiend" is a relative of dirtling,'earthling has no brain', who had no hi skule DEE-plooomaa. However, the education of "fetid feces face flip flopper fiend" never advanced like that of 'eart hling(alien has no affinity to Earth)'.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#19 Mar 24, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
You ARE a liar. You're very clever & knowledgeable, especially compared to other deniers, but deniers are liars.
Who pays you? How does the oil money get to you? How much do they pay you?
You COULD tell the truth about those things, & show to all of us that you're not a liar. Come on, prove me wrong about that.
LOL did I hit a nerve?

I'm not like you. I don't rely on a big oil company (or a web site) to give me information. The reason I can explain what I have discovered in my own words is that I have actually done the work to learn what it is I am speaking of.

It is also the reason I propose questions or provde addtional information that you have no response to.

I had hoped you would be someone who would investigate new information and post your findings on the various subjects. You didn't and my experience is that if your preferred web site doesn't have anything to say, you don't either.

I have been challenged by some and annoyed by many on these threads. The challengers I welcome, the annoying I ignore.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#20 Mar 24, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL did I hit a nerve?
I'm not like you. I don't rely on a big oil company (or a web site) to give me information. The reason I can explain what I have discovered in my own words is that I have actually done the work to learn what it is I am speaking of.
It is also the reason I propose questions or provde addtional information that you have no response to.
I had hoped you would be someone who would investigate new information and post your findings on the various subjects. You didn't and my experience is that if your preferred web site doesn't have anything to say, you don't either.
I have been challenged by some and annoyed by many on these threads. The challengers I welcome, the annoying I ignore.
You didn't answer my question. How much do they pay you to post this stuff?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weather Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Michelle Grossman - About NBC 10 News Story - W... (Mar '08) 5 hr RamapoU 760
News El Ni o ending and La Ni a watch issued: Big im... 22 hr Paul 1
News Heavy rain floods some homes on Mississippi Gul... Thu play 1
News Remember the Climate Thu Earthling-1 87
News Residents Worried About Levees in Yuba City Wed Mrs Elspeth 2
News Strong winds returning to Southern California, ... Wed Janice 1
News Ohio attorney general visits homes where 8 were... Apr 27 Sterkfontein Swar... 4
More from around the web