"Same here. I show that AR5 points to the lack of evidence that extreme weather events are increasing globally, and, without trying in the slightest to disprove that, you simply seek to ignore it by reverting to regional models. They may or may not be right but either way my original point stands."

No, you're point fails because your original copy and paste sources cherrypicked those segments they wanted to, didn't they? Your 'point' was that the Working Group said there was no evidence of increased incidence of extreme weather events. My point is that is not what the Working Group said at all. My point is READ THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT and stop cherrypicking! Or at least go back and read my double-post reply to your Working Group assertions, you'll see all the quotes you need to.

Posted by Max Green, Thursday, 18 August 2016 8:27:24 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18419&page=15

Ignore? I didn't ignore anything. I happily concede what the Working Group said about GLOBAL models: because talking about extreme weather event son a global basis seems to be almost meaningless.

But when discussing regional extreme weather events, the Working Group is clear. They're increasing. The fact that you just don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true. It could be one of those "Inconvenient Truths" that Al Gore was talking about.

Lastly, don't try and bring your favourite paper into it about the temps just after the last Ice Age. That was an interesting conversation, and I'm not afraid of it. But the last few pages we've been discussing Extreme Weather events. Stop trying to change the topic.

mhaze

As with so many deniers/lukewarmers you provide lots of verbiage; but, very few references. Where references have been provided they display cherry picking, misrepresentation of data, or references are very poorly presented.

You have been shown to be wrong in relation to:
. the IPCC and extreme weather, Max has explained that very well.
.you are wrong about Marcott, ever join AAAS?
.when discussing the cryosphere...drunken trees, methane explosions, breakdown of infrastructure through permafrost thawing you down played that matter.

All you can do is try and caste doubt, when references to science papers or quotes from scientists/meteorologists to what say; you are completely wrong.
Semantics does not stand up to actual examples.

His response is just as I predicted a few days ago: "Run. Change the topic. Do anything you can to avoid admitting that YES, the IPCC Working Group admits there is an increase in Extreme Weather events!"

The hypocrisy here is that it was Mhaze who castigated US with ....

“Always believe the peer-reviewed science...unless it doesn't tell you what you want to hear. In that case go with the self-interested assertion.”

Hypocrisy, much?

Max

I appreciate that your self-esteem took a hit over the 'outrageous' temperature issue and that even you would realise how silly it looks to be sooooo convinced of AGW without knowing the past temperatures.
Its only human to try to salvage some face by trying to find some other issue to score points.

But climate extremes isn't it.

Some background:
AR4 made a big play around supposed increases in extreme events. Like AR5 this was based on little data but lots of model results. But as the data came in, it showed that claimed global extremes weren't there which is why the climbdown in AR5 was such a big admission. To mask that the IPCC then started talking about regional extremes, based again on little data and lots of model results. We'll have to wait to see if the data supports those claims in AR6.

However it should be easier for them to maintain this claim since there'll always be some region or other that experiences unusual events.

Given, as you now have learned, that current temperatures have occurred in the recent past, if it is true that these extreme events are caused by warming and notby the normal ebbs and flows of climate variability, we can deduce that similar extremes must have occurred regionally in the recent past. That is why I treat events like the claimed permafrost melting, 'drunken' trees and glacial melts as mere passing curiosities.

Its true that AR5_WG1 talked both about global and regional extremes. I didn't ignore the regional claims. I just don't think they are either important or proven.

That the perpetually scared latch onto the scare around regional changes and overlook the admissions about global changes is to be expected - it was always thus.

mhaze
This might be of interest:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/index.php

https://youtu.be/zn_9uBIubzU