mhaze

Nobody has ever stated that extreme weather events have never happened before. Put another way in recorded history of weather events, how many other times have there been 6 x 1 in 1,000 year major flooding events in a 5 year period in SE USA...it was a Meteorologist who commented on the incredible statistics involved. There have been many instances of huge floods in the last decade around the globe where houses and cars have been washed away.

I have referenced previously where ExxonMobil have made donations to ALEC et al which are denier organisations from the paper work derived from ExxonMobil. ExxonMobil's scientists have also published science which fits into the consensus. ExxonMobil is being investigated allegedly for misleading stock holders. There is still much being written in relation to ExxonMobil; they have even been promoting a mining tax.

Since IPCC there are several papers that have associated anthropogenic climate change with weather events. In other words climate change can give particular weather events a fillip. We are told by scientists that a warmer atmosphere carries more water vapour.

Currently, there are unexpected high temperatures in a number of countries.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/buffalo-gets-first-snow-smashes-record-longest-time-without-any-n483156

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/32-7c-in-dunedin-record-temperatures-hit-scorching-south-island

https://twitter.com/GarySzatkowski

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/nature-state-confusion-europe-heat-continues-151222104608676.html

Cumbria was hit again by flooding though not as serious as earlier this year.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/12/24/east_coast_weather_is_freakishly_warm_this_christmas_eve.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-world-faces-food-shortages-and-mass-migration-caused-by-global-warming-a6784911.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/melting-arctic-ice-precipitation_56796ffde4b014efe0d6c7fa?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067&section=australia

Those are examples for December, there are examples for other months of 2015.

By the end of November the Sierra Nevada had only received 40% of its normal snowfall; very serious for California should that trend continue.

Max Green,

Yes I'm aware that the alarmists have a new theory to explain why their old theory was wrong. This week its the jet stream and that'll hold until proper research debunks it or the some other explanation becomes more useful.

Those of us who have followed this whole silly saga for more than 30seconds can remember back a decade ago to when the 'settled science' was telling us that snow was becoming a thing of the past and that children would grow up not knowing what snow looked like due to the effects of global warming. This was after a few years of reduced snow fall. Of coarse those who disputed this were declared to be deniers who rejected the clear science and were told that the GW models proved the reduction in snow was inevitable due to those nasty fossil fuel companies.

Now that we have MORE snow we are told that this is all due to GW. Of coarse those who dispute this are declared to be deniers who reject the clear science and are told that the GW models prove the INCREASE in snow is inevitable due to those nasty fossil fuel companies.

So no matter what the weather does it proves the theory which thereby becomes unfalsifiable - faith-based, not science at all.

Mhaze,
I have been cross country skiing in the Vic snow fields and the Snowy Mountains since the 1970s. Snow falls and length of the snow season in the 2000's has been sharply reduced compared with earlier decades.

Your comments about snow fall sounds too much like numerous other myths generated by those who are in the thrall of the fossil fuel industry. Unsubstantiated waffle worthy of a Monckton, a Carter, a Moore, - you might have noticed that the number of denialists is reducing, quickly.

ant,

1. It is claimed these are 1 in 1000 year events. But this is purely guess work since they have no way of knowing how often these things occur over that time scale. As with Carolina two of these 1 in 1000 year events occurred early last century when its impossible for even the most devoted member of the one-true-faith to blame it on CO2. Two such events might give those who were more interested in the facts than the fable to wonder if those who set these 1-in-1000 markers might have erred.

2. There are approximately 200,000 towns world-wide with some sort of weather station. Take 5 climate events (snow, flood, drought, fire, high-wind) which each of those towns might suffer, that means that there are 1million (200000x5) potential events each year. And that is at the low end of the calculation since some of these only need to occur on one day. So the potential number of DAILY events is in the region of 200million per year. To be conservative lets say there are 50million such DAILY potential events yearly world-wide.

Since we are talking about 1-in-1000 events, that means that, on average, there should be 50000 ( 5mill/1000) 1-in-1000year events per year world-wide or 130 or so each day.

Now we get into some sophisticated statistical probability analysis which can't be explained here, but using such analysis it is rather obvious that the likelihood that at least one place will experience more than 4 1-in-1000year events in 1 year is very high.

This works along the same lines as the birthday paradox whereby if you get 70 random people together its virtually certain two will have the same birthdate. Similarly, if you have 50000 events its virtually certain some will happen in the same place in the same year. And in your case we have these Carolina events happening over several years so the odds that this multiple 1-in-1000 event occurring somewhere are very high.

Still despite this, these events remain useful to the cause and therefore the near certainty of multiple events is ignored.

In another set of climate change posts, I suggested that each person standing for an elected government position should be required to prove he or she can think.

The article above by Senator McGarvie further supports that position.

To think that not one, of the thousands of scientists researching different aspects of AGW, has been prepared to spill the beans to a newspaper. In such a large and multi- faceted conspiracy, you would think at least one might chase media dollars for exposing the dastardly dead.

This conspiracy has lead to potentially billions of wasted dollars going to earth sensing satellites, just to add a level of authenticity to the myth of AGW. And then, scientists involved in this myth making come from the following branches: atmospheric, oceanic - surface and deep, glaciologists - ice caps and glaciers, biologists, ecologists, soils, forrestry, satellite, health care, and many more.

And, the bind that McGarvie is in with repect to the Bureau of Meterology: to strengthen the AGW myth, BOM has to use its collected data to predict the weather for a week or so ahead, while using that same data to depict the mythical multi decade warming trend.

To me, the available data says that McGarvie can't think.

There is no myth.

In my view, trying to delay urgent action on climate change is almost criminal.

Mhaze,
Vostok ice records go back 800,000 years. Ice core records provide CO2 data, proxy temp data, precipitation amount and more.

Other proxy records go back many millions of years.

I would suggest leaving statistics and risk to experts in CSIRO and elsewhere.