April 2013 Open Thread

More thread.


  1. #1 bill
    April 11, 2013

    Why the sockpuppet imagines I’m old, or that I, or anyone else, would be disturbed or impressed by references to my having been a cabbie many years ago, is indicative both of its general level of comprehension and of its relationship to evidence.

    And, yes, one can only agree that if this were to be a paid service someone really needs to demand their money back.

    But perhaps it’s really Soros that is funding you, Karen, cunningly deploying you to make Deniers look stupid? Now, he‘s getting his money’s worth!

  2. #2 Wow
    April 11, 2013

    “Someone should ask for their money back”

    He’s sowing discord and (if you’re sufficiently motivated to believe the shit) doubt. The BAU businesses make so much money, it’s like spammers: absolutely doesn’t matter if it doesn’t work, it only has to have a possibility of working to make the sociopaths feel assured supporting it.

  3. #3 Jeff Harvey
    April 11, 2013


    Smearing studies they don’t like – even those published in the most esteemed journals like Nature and Science – is par for the course for deniers. Smearing scientists who write these articles goes along with it. Why do they do it? BECAUSE ON A BLOG WHERE THEY ARE ANONYMOUS THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT.AND ITS SO EASY TO WRITE INTO A BLOG. In any scientific venue or journal they’d be tarred and feathered as laughingstocks. But on weblogs they can pound their chests like Silverbacks and belittle, deride, ridicule, and smear at will because there are no repercussions and because in their puny little minds it elevates them to the status of ‘experts’. If they can trash Nature papers, they think that they must be, by default, esteemed experts with a deep knowledge of the field.

    And Karen, as utterly idiotic as he/she/it is, is not the worst. Hop over the Jonas thread and the king of self–righteous arrogance resides: the man (Jonas) himself. Tim Curtin did it too, with papers in journals like PNAS that he didn’t like. Essentially, we have a veritable army of ignorants casually dismissing studies they don’t like whilst bolstering denier weblogs and a few studies often published in comedy venues (e.g. E & E, 21st centruy S & T) etc.

    And note that the vast majority of these self-professed ‘experts’ like Jonas and Karen have never published a single, scientific paper in their lives. Heck, even if they had something in athe journal ‘Fartology’ on the origins of flatulence I would give them a scintalla of credit. But they have NIX. And none of them are scientists, either. They don’t have scientific degrees (my bet is that many of them don’t even have any degree) and they have never attended conferences, workshops or other venues where these issues are debated and discussed.

    Instead, these nitwits contaminate the blogosphere which is the only available venue for them to spread their piffle. But, as I said, its not just that they do this, but that they do this with absolute arrogance and self-righteousness. They continaully beat their chests as if to say they desrve to be hears, and not only that, but that their views are important.

    Of course we know that they are, in reality, an army of scientific illiterates.

  4. #4 Wow
    April 11, 2013


    Exhibitionist behavior
    Constant seeking of reassurance or approval
    Excessive sensitivity to criticism or disapproval
    Pride of own personality and unwillingness to change, viewing any change as a threat
    Inappropriately seductive appearance or behavior of a sexual nature
    Using somatic symptoms (of physical illness) to garner attention
    A need to be the center of attention
    Low tolerance for frustration or delayed gratification
    Rapidly shifting emotional states that may appear superficial or exaggerated to others
    Tendency to believe that relationships are more intimate than they actually are
    Making rash decisions[4]
    Blaming personal failures or disappointments on others
    Being easily influenced by others, especially those who treat them approvingly
    Being overly dramatic and emotional[6]

  5. #5 lord_sidcup
    April 11, 2013

    This is funny, and demonstrates that scepticism and basic fact checking are not Anthony Watts thing.


    You would think a graph showing a greater than 50% drop in US gasolene consumption (that’s a bad thing by the way) would prick his scepticism – but no, he runs with it.

  6. #6 chek
    April 11, 2013

    Redarse #92
    The ‘uncertainties’ referred to by the Met Office have nothing to do with the basic science, which is what you desperately hope.

    But you’re wrong, as you would discover if you quit wallowing in the alternate worlds of trash denier blogs.

  7. #7 chek
    April 11, 2013

    While we’re on th esubject of trollism, it sometimes occurs to me that The ‘Goddard’ Collective, The Watts Collective and their ilk probably don’t actually spend all day every day twisting their brains to hunt for loopholes or ways to distort real science.

    I suspect the rest of their time is spent socking for each other in support of the collective rubbish they publish.

    It’s one possible reason those like SpamKan don’t even attempt to defend the indefensible nonsense they spam, but instead adopt the tactic of swiftly moving on to the next pile of crap that’s been flung.

  8. #8 BBD
    April 11, 2013

    SpamKan demonstrates its idiocy once more, this time on the matter of La Nina’s influence on Australian annual mean temperature.

    Get a clue, SpamKan! Look at the long term trend!

    Now, remember, that giant, double-dip La Nina is over now, and ooh! Look what happened to temperatures in Australia!


    The last seven months have been exceptional in terms of heat records.

    During this period, Australia registered the warmest Septemberโ€“March on record, the hottest summer on record, the hottest month on record and the hottest day on record.

    A record was also set for the longest national scale heatwave.

    And El Nino isn’t developing yet *still* Australia boils and burns!



  9. #9 Rednose
    April 11, 2013

    Well look you.
    Two more Russian scientists from the Russian Academy of Experts warn of an imminent cold period.
    How many is this? I am beginning to loose count.


    But the science is entirely scientifically robust and they are Russian, so cannot be trusted, probably cranks and in the pay of big oil.

  10. #10 Rednose
    April 11, 2013

    #6 chek

    I take the “uncertainties” to be a fairly honest assessment about what they do not know. Would that were always the case.

  11. #11 Wow
    April 11, 2013

    So, what is it they do not know?

    You don’t know. Because you don’t understand what it says, but are blathering out bullshit because you think it proves something it doesn’t.

  12. #12 Wow
    April 11, 2013

    “How many is this? I am beginning to loose count.”

    To be honest, you have problem counting to three…

  13. #13 Rednose
    April 11, 2013


    I know its more than 3. Thats why I asked for help. ๐Ÿ™‚

  14. #14 cRR Kampen
    April 11, 2013

    Rednose #9, what’s to be done about it? More CO2 in the air?

  15. #15 Rednose
    April 11, 2013

    I suggest find ways to keep warm.

  16. #16 Wow
    April 11, 2013

    “I know its more than 3.”

    No, you don’t know that.

  17. #17 cRR Kampen
    April 11, 2013

    Well, Rednose, it’s not going to happen. Did you read your link, citing another 30 ‘scientists’ expecting cooling, published in early autumn 2010? I guess they thought the Russian summer that year was a wee bit over climate, good gamble to predict some ‘cooling’ then.
    Incidentally winters are becoming warmer. Everywhere. Except maybe part of China part of last winter, and part of Alaska winter 11-12, even the so called really really cold winters everywhere are actually just the norm for say 1961-1990… Cold winters are warming up, too ๐Ÿ™‚

    We’ll wait till Karen’s finished her list for adstruction.

  18. #18 Rednose
    April 11, 2013

    “No, you donโ€™t know that”.

    Well lets count them.
    There was Assi watsit the crank on Page 1. Thats 1
    And there are these two here. Thats 3
    And there is bound to be another Russian among this lot:


    So I make that more than 3.

  19. #19 Rednose
    April 11, 2013

    “Incidentally winters are becoming warmer. Everywhere”

    Best tell that to the sheepfarmers in N Wales.
    They will be glad to know.
    Not sure what planet you are on but I dont think its planet Earth.

  20. #20 chek
    April 11, 2013

    But the science is entirely scientifically robust and they are Russian, so cannot be trusted, probably cranks and in the pay of big oil.

    Well, quelle surprise you’ve chuffed out another solar cycle crank who appears to be a computer scientist, not a climate scientist , and a conspiracy theorist to boot: “The scientists add that part of the motive behind the โ€œmarketing trickโ€ [the ‘AGW scare’, natch] is to manipulate the market for fossil fuels.”

    Basically, the thing is Redarse that you’ll believe anything with no scepticism whatsoever.

  21. #21 BBD
    April 11, 2013


    Well look you.
    Two more Russian scientists from the Russian Academy of Experts warn of an imminent cold period.
    How many is this? I am beginning to loose count.

    Oh you utter, utter fuckwit.

    That’s Bashkin & Galiullin AGAIN. You made a mammary of yourself over this last week. These two clowns work for GAZPROM. As I pointed out to you at the time.

    Prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat, prat!!!!!!!!

  22. #22 chek
    April 11, 2013

    โ€œIncidentally winters are becoming warmer. Everywhereโ€

    Did they say every winter without fail, or did you imagine that’s what was meant because abstract concepts like ‘trends’ and ‘averages’ are really beyond you?

  23. #23 Wow
    April 11, 2013

    “Best tell that to the sheepfarmers in N Wales.”

    Yup, weather again.

  24. #24 BBD
    April 11, 2013

    Rednoise The Clown

    they are Russian, so cannot be trusted, probably cranks and in the pay of big oil.

    ๐Ÿ˜‰ ๐Ÿ˜‰ ๐Ÿ˜‰

  25. #25 Rednose
    April 11, 2013

    Still more than 3.
    ๐Ÿ™‚ ๐Ÿ™‚ ๐Ÿ™‚ ๐Ÿ™‚

  26. #26 BBD
    April 11, 2013

    The list you provide in your second link is a mix of the demented and the misrepresented. My guess is that you are too much of an ignoramus to determine which is which.

    Remember, you have been listening to the “Voice of GAZPROM!”

    You prat!

  27. #27 Wow
    April 11, 2013

    three what?

  28. #28 BBD
    April 11, 2013

    Russian oil shills?

  29. #29 Wow
    April 11, 2013

    three french hens?

  30. #30 BBD
    April 11, 2013

    And a denialist in a pear tree…

  31. #31 Wow
    April 11, 2013

    (well, I was expecting something like “Two dippy trolls”)

  32. #32 BBD
    April 11, 2013

    I was using a numbering system derived from libertarian physics…


  33. #33 BBD
    April 11, 2013

    Rednoise really stuffed himself up this time, didn’t he? Still chortling over that one.

    That’s *twice* he’s been slipped and fallen on his arse in the same puddle of oily Russian chum!

    Brilliant clowning. Evidence for intellectual integrity & coherence… not so much.

  34. #34 Jeff Harvey
    April 11, 2013

    Hardly a name on the denier blog Rednose cites has a lengthy pedigree in science. Most of the names listed are scientists with few peer-reviewed publications; the usual suspects (Piers Corbyn, Joe Bastardi etc) also appear.

    Essentially its the old bucket=scraping exercise again. Note also how Hulme’s quote is taken out of context (re 2500 climate scientists endorsing the IPCC findings). Hulme was only referring to he scientists who actually contributed to the latest IPCC draft; he wasn’t suggesting that the majority of climate scientists don’t defend the theory of AGW.

    But deniers are masters at taking quotes out of context and twisting them to say something else.

  35. #35 bill
    April 11, 2013

    Myles Allen has a recent letter in Nature Geoscience claiming an uncanny accuracy for his 1999 temp predictions.

    Have a guess, by the way, which way they go from here?

    Well, you don’t need to, of course, but this will doubtlessly cause more idiot wailing and gnashing-of-teeth.

    And it’s all rather amusing in the wake of some of Monckton’s recent claims

  36. #36 bill
    April 11, 2013

    ‘I am beginning to loose count’ is more accurate than he realised! ๐Ÿ˜‰

    ‘What a maroon!,’ as a certain Lagomorph might say.

  37. #38 bill
    April 12, 2013

    Mann and Nuccitelli take on The Economist on ECS at the ABC.

    Young Dana will go far, methinks.

  38. #39 Olaus Petri
    April 12, 2013

    Help me Jeffie, there’s a problem with understanding scale at NOAA:

    “Today, a new report by the NOAA Drought Task Force and the NOAA-led National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) finds natural variations in weather patterns caused this sudden โ€œflash drought,โ€ and is rules out global ocean conditions, as well as human-induced climate change, as major culprits.”


    Some “task force”…

  39. #40 Nick
    April 12, 2013

    Olaus,until you read the full media release and the report, there’s little point in discussing it with you.

  40. #41 Olaus Petri
    April 12, 2013

    Watts up Nick? You too have problem with scale?

  41. #42 bill
    April 12, 2013

    Gee; another uncomprehending buffoon who thinks he’s a genius.

  42. #43 Nick
    April 12, 2013

    #41 problem with scale? it’s your problem with scale that will be helped by reading the report ,OP….or,as Bill says.

  43. #44 Olaus Petri
    April 12, 2013

    Hmm…Nick, can you elaborate on your scale problem? Or are you saying that the task force team has one? ๐Ÿ˜‰

  44. #45 Jeff Harvey
    April 12, 2013

    Ball’s in your court Ollie: why don’t you enlighten us here with your understanding of the difference between a stochastic process and a deterministic one, and of the importance of scale in the Earth and environmental sciences. Both are important concepts in predicting local and large scale responses to perturbations.

    I can’t wait to hear your scientific ‘wisdom’ laid out here for all to see.

  45. #46 chek
    April 12, 2013

    Olap’s slimy evasion is indication enough of his “understanding”.

  46. #47 cRR Kampen
    April 12, 2013

    Rednose #19 thinks N Wales is the whรณรณรณรณรณรณรณรณรณรณle world (just for a moment)
    ๐Ÿ˜€ ๐Ÿ˜€

  47. #48 Olaus Petri
    April 12, 2013

    Me evasive? Explain to me: Who’s got the problem with scale, the task force team or the jacob creutzfeldt-suffering climate scare sheeps in the deltoid paddok?

    Help me out here fellas!


  48. #49 Karen
    April 12, 2013



    I’m wondering why the BOM doesn’t highlight that little nugget ?

    aha……..and here is one for BBD


    BBD, can you run that evaporation thingo/stuffie past me again please ?

  49. #50 cRR Kampen
    April 12, 2013

    #23, yeah, patterns as cold as they get but no way a winter could compare to the likes of 1963 or 1940 of course. You just have to add like two degrees of warming. Coldest winters are gradually becoming mild too.

    But maybe Blednose saw some snow. Well, a lot of snow, as global warming induces more precipitation et c.

  50. #51 cRR Kampen
    April 12, 2013

    Karen #49, please explain those graphs. We are clueless as to their interpretation.

    And move on with that list.

  51. #52 cRR Kampen
    April 12, 2013

    #22 chek – you fired at wrong target.

  52. #53 Wow
    April 12, 2013

    Watts up, Olap?

    Spots here is using weather rather than climate, and you’re silent.

    Well, I guess it’s merely more proof that you don’t know what climate is.

  53. #54 Nick
    April 12, 2013

    OP, the report is about a regional drought in 2012. Meanwhile,central and south-western US and northern Mexico are in a rolling drought against a backdrop of a fall in average rainfall over the past century. Hence your problem with scale.

    The report finds CC was not a major player in the 2012 ‘flash drought’ in the Central Great Plains region,and lays out some meteorological mechanisms. I expect you thought you could extrapolate from this event to the broader moisture deficit and droughting in the greater area,given your fixations.

  54. #55 Nick
    April 12, 2013

    Kaz has discovered the expected change to diurnal temp variation,and the ‘evaporation paradox’ and wants to be guided…again.

  55. #56 Wow
    April 12, 2013

    “Me evasive? Explain to me: Whoโ€™s got the problem with scale”

    You, you blithering fool.

  56. #57 Karen
    April 12, 2013

    What was the expected change to diurnal temp Nickie ?

  57. #58 lord_sidcup
    April 12, 2013

    Is it possible Karen has stumbled on diurnal temperature range and confused it with temperature? Is he that dumb?

  58. #59 Olaus Petri
    April 12, 2013

    Nick, that’s indeed a scale problem.:-) A regional climate change activity that started prior to AGW-effects and a regional weather event claimed to be a(nother) portent for CAGW which wasn’t.

    Very good scale comprehension. ๐Ÿ˜€

  59. #60 cRR Kampen
    April 12, 2013

    #57, slightly going down as nights warm up more quickly than daytime. So you posted one of those simple pieces of evidence for AGW again ๐Ÿ™‚

    Is the unique run of 20+ minimum temps of Melbourne of around six weeks ago already on your list, or haven’t you come to that yet?

  60. #61 bill
    April 12, 2013



    Thanks for drawing more evidence of AGW to our attention, SpamKan; this is every bit as stupid as your recent inability to distinguish to distinguish between years.

    It’s too much to hope that you could ever feel a fool, but you certainly are one.

  61. #62 Karen
    April 12, 2013

    Hi happy camper ๐Ÿ™‚

    Thanks, I thought that was how it was supposed to go ?

    Maybe you hadn’t noticed something strange about it http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=dtr&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=15 the running average turned up in 1992

    Hi Lordy ๐Ÿ™‚

    may zing ๐Ÿ™‚

    um…where iz it ?……………….um…….

    I’m looking for something for Frank……oh here it is http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png

    That should cheer him up ๐Ÿ™‚

  62. #63 Karen
    April 12, 2013

    hehehe, poor old billyboy is still sooking because of his last three monumental blunders.

    Hey……billy………..that paper is 9 yrs old ๐Ÿ™‚

  63. #64 Olaus Petri
    April 12, 2013

    Great riposte Wow, now, you got anything more to say on the scale gas problem? ๐Ÿ™‚

  64. #65 Nick
    April 12, 2013

    #59 ….and I did mention your fixations… a regional climate change activity that started prior to AGW effects is exactly how you’d prefer to see it. Your certainty is unwarranted.

    And while a more local atmospheric mechanism is indicated for twelve months of intense drought in the Central Great Plains,the broader areal trend remains,and temperature trends are such that dryness [2012 driest May-August on record for that region] will be exacerbated.

    From the report: This is not intended to be a comprehensive assessment of the possible effects of global warming on the 2012 Central plains drought,and hence results here are inconclusive

  65. #66 Karen
    April 12, 2013

    Heyโ€ฆโ€ฆbillyโ€ฆโ€ฆโ€ฆ..don’t go thrashing the guts out that ooold FJ Holden taxi of yours just because you were StOoOOPid again ๐Ÿ™‚


  66. #67 cRR Kampen
    April 12, 2013

    #62, nothing strange for me, for I know it all.
    See you turned on ice now. That’s good. Means you’re gone in less than three months or so.

  67. #68 Nick
    April 12, 2013

    Kazbot is the kind of dataminer which only sees the very latest and smallest subset of the data. Of very limited use.

  68. #69 Karen
    April 12, 2013

    21 years Nickie ๐Ÿ™‚

    21 years that the trend (according to the spurts) was supposed to be down ?

    maze ing…. totally contrary to the consensus science stuphhhhh, you guys should be doing cartwheels.

  69. #70 Karen
    April 12, 2013

    21 years Nickie ๐Ÿ™‚

    21 years that the trend (according to the spurts) was supposed to be down ?

    maze ing…. totally contrary to the consensus science stuphhhhh, you guys should be doing cartwheels…….

  70. #71 chek
    April 12, 2013

    Not at all, cRR K. #52.
    What I wanted was a demonstration that Olap had the faintest idea of what he’s talking about spamming. Which he amply provided, thanks.

  71. #72 bill
    April 12, 2013

    Oh, for God’s sake.

    Yep, that thin layer of first-year ice is going to change everything. And where was the SIA at at the same time in your cherrypicked series for the record low year 2012 – not to be confused with 2011 – SpamKan?

    Regurgitate, get trounced, run, and repeat.

  72. #73 cRR Kampen
    April 12, 2013

    #69, finish the drink and go to bed. Tomorrow’s another day.

    #70, chek, I thought you were telling me certain magical concepts like trend and average were beyond me. Well hell no, though it is beyond me to explain such to climate revisionists. I don’t even try.

  73. #74 lord_sidcup
    April 12, 2013

    21 years that the trend (according to the spurts) was supposed to be down

    According to SpamKan, 1992 to 2005 = 21 years. You should really try looking at your own spam Karen.

  74. #75 Nick
    April 12, 2013

    #69… dumbshit ,you wouldn’t want DT range to keep falling,would ya! You know so little about this issue you’d even reject Venusion DTR as evidence of climate change…what a joke you are!

  75. #76 Lotharsson
    April 12, 2013

    If Karen’s so convinced that the current ice picture invalidates the climate science consensus s/he should be borrowing every dollar they can and plonking it down in the bet that Bernard J. offered on quite generous terms.

    But Karen hasn’t – and Karen won’t, which strongly indicates that even s/he doesn’t believe the crap s/he spouts here.

  76. #77 Olaus Petri
    April 12, 2013

    I think I got it, the scale thing: Katrina, not AGW just weather; Russian heat wave, not AGW just weather; Sandy, not AGW just weather; Mid west drought 2012, not AGW just weather, etc…= CAGW.

    Correct? ๐Ÿ˜‰

  77. #78 Nick
    April 12, 2013

    #76 yawn…Olaus, you get nothing,and possibly quite intentionally. After a while playing at stupid becomes indistinguishable from stupid. How long ago do you reckon you made the transition?

  78. #79 cRR Kampen
    April 12, 2013

    #76, like: one swallow makes no summer, so a million swallows CERTAINLY make no summer.

  79. #80 Olaus Petri
    April 12, 2013

    So what are you saying Nick? That NOAA has a problem with scale, and you don’t? ๐Ÿ˜‰

    No cRRKampen, if extreme weather events had become more frequent you might have had a case, but since that’s not it, you end up having a problem with scale. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    Like Jeffie..

  80. #81 cRR Kampen
    April 12, 2013

    #79, extreme weather events have become more frequent. About a factor three over the past three decades.
    Follow the money e.g. here: http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/graph0.jpg
    Now, you are looking at the world’s principal database for natural disasters, compiled by the world’s second largest insurance company.

    Any questions?

  81. #82 Jeff Harvey
    April 12, 2013

    Extreme weather events ARE becoming more problematical, as James Hansen explained in his TED lecture last year. In other words, a greater area of the biopshere is affected by extreme conditions – heat waves, droughts, storms over the course of time – than happened in 1960 (in fact, the incidence has increased by many factors). Whereas one exteme event cannot, of course, be attributed to AGW, this significant increase in many events over many years can be. Its the same thing as saying one record temperature recorded soemwhere cannot be attributed to AGW, but the fact that the ratio of warm:cold records has icnreased significantly and linearly with every decade since the 1960s can be. This is where one sees the shift from small to large scale data sets, and even simple regression analyses can tease out the statistical significance.

    I know Olaus that this is over your wafer-thin head, as expected, because you are an imbecile who has no scientific acumen whatsoever. No need for you to apologize for your affliction; its best that you seek some kind of medical help.

  82. #83 Jeff Harvey
    April 12, 2013

    The post by Olaus at # 76 is a case in point. Its so mind numbingly gumbified that I wonder why we even engage with this clown?

    Essentially, Olaus needs to start reading some elementary text books. His comment (# 76) is so utterly naive that it tells me now exactly on what intellectual level we are delaing with. Benthic. Anoxic. Embedded in the substrate.

    And to think that Olaus is one of the biggest supporters of Jonas in the insanity thread. With friends like this, who needs enemies?

  83. #84 Olaus Petri
    April 12, 2013

    #80, Sure I have. Why do you give me a link to an insurance company? ๐Ÿ˜‰

    Here is a better source: http://www2.lse.ac.uk/geographyAndEnvironment/whosWho/profiles/neumayer/pdf/Natdis_norm.pdf

  84. #85 cRR Kampen
    April 12, 2013

    #81 is the explanation of my swallows saying but in Wonderland. Paraphrased: if one record temperature recorded somewhere cannot be attributed to AGW, then a million such records CERTAINLY cannot be attributed to AGW ๐Ÿ™‚

  85. #86 Nick
    April 12, 2013

    #79 What am I saying? That your knowledge base is woeful. Try harder.

  86. #87 cRR Kampen
    April 12, 2013

    #83, because insurance companies are quite sharp with spotting swallows. Did you register my comment: follow the money? It’s always the climate revistionists’ sorta nonsense, I’m making sense thereof.

    Your link contains observations like “Our finding of an increasing trend in the frequency
    count of weather-related disasters, including only major ones,…” or
    “… If so, the past will be a poor guide to the future.
    In sum, while we find no evidence for an increasing trend in
    normalized economic damage from natural disasters, this provides no reason for complacency. That inflation-adjusted non-normalized disaster damage is significantly increasing should prompt policy-makers into seriously considering measures to prevent the further accumulation of wealth in disaster-prone areas. More importantly for the debate on climate change, our results do not undermine the argument of those who, based on the precautionary
    principle, wish to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to prevent or reduce a potentially increasing economic toll from natural disasters in the future. We find no evidence for an increasing trend in the normalized economic toll from natural disasters based on historical data, but given our inability to control for defensive mitigating measures we cannot rule out its existence, let alone rule out the possibility of an increasing trend in the future.”

    Did your work again (climate revisionists are always quite handicapped see). $28.95 will do.

  87. #88 Olaus Petri
    April 12, 2013

    CrrKampen, you rely on insurance companies, I rely on research.:-D

    Yeah, there must be a scale problem. ๐Ÿ˜‰

  88. #89 Nick
    April 12, 2013

    #87 There’s a plaque buildup in your brain OP. That’s a scale problem …

  89. #90 cRR Kampen
    April 12, 2013

    #87, how can you rely on something you are totally ignorant of? Please find someone who can read, so you become aquainted to the conclusions of YOUR reference in #83
    (for those who can read I provided some in #86).
    You may speak to me after that. Meantime, $57.90.

  90. #91 Nick
    April 12, 2013

    further to #81, US wide data shows most of the country is seeing a statistically significant trending increase in storms with extreme precipitation. There was a recent paper looking at 70 years of one hourly data at a number of sites.The interesting site was a mountain one with a maritime climate and precipitation on most days of the year, IOW a very stable predictably wet climate with a moderate temperature range. A significant increase in intense precipitation events was detected.

  91. #92 cRR Kampen
    April 12, 2013

    #90, somewhat likewise in Holland we are finding a very significant increase of days where somewhere in the country 50mm or more is registered (not due to an increase in measuring points). More generally the country is getting wetter, without the number of hours of precipitation having increased. If it rains, tendency to pour is up.

  92. #93 Wow
    April 12, 2013

    ” I rely on research”

    No, you rely on not researching, Olap.

  93. #94 Olaus Petri
    April 12, 2013

    Insurance copany figures is climate research in your world, not in mine. ๐Ÿ™‚ I do believe insurance companies are sharp though โ€“ on finding out if the costs start to rise. Imagine that! Amazing news here in deltoid land. ๐Ÿ™‚

    So can we finally agree on that the extreme weather events haven’t increased? ๐Ÿ˜‰

  94. #95 BBD
    April 12, 2013

    No, Olaus we cannot. Because they have, and all data show this. Whatever you claim to the contrary.

  95. #96 BBD
    April 12, 2013

    You seem to belong to the same school of compartmentalised “thinking” attended by our Kaz.

    You apparently believe that increasing GAT (SST, LST, tropospheric T) will not have any effects on evaporation/precipitation etc.

    Please explain why not.

  96. #97 chek
    April 12, 2013

    Please explain why not.

    Because Olap doesn’t understand even the most basic science. He’s one of Rove’s idiots who believe reality is to be created rather than observed and understood. More commonly referred to as ‘a nutter’.

  97. #98 Wow
    April 12, 2013

    “Insurance copany figures is climate research in your world, not in mine”

    Geologist executives do, though, don’t they, Olap.

  98. #99 Olaus Petri
    April 12, 2013

    The drought task force team good sense of scale is hard to digest for you reverends.

    Here some more to scale for ya, anno 1902: ๐Ÿ˜‰


  99. #100 Wow
    April 12, 2013

    So you now want everyone else to do your analysis for you, which, when it inevitably doesn’t show what you want it to, you will abandon for yet another trotski bullshit post?

1 5 6 7 8 9 12

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.