Trevor:
Also staring you in the face is a graph with a very obvious trendline on it and somehow your brain registers this as being “no real trend”.
Apparently you decided to completely ignore the point of the question which was regarding the lack of precipitation extremes over the last 15 years. You show a graph with an increasing trend which I thought was a pathetic response (OK that wasn't very polite of me but it kind of ticked me off). I probably shouldn't have used the word catastrophic and admit I was just rubbing alarmists noses in the term which they laughably blame on skeptics. Without catastrophic effects, we wouldn't spend billions (trillions) on AGW. If the graph you provided started at 1970, I think even you can admit that there is a decreasing trend since then. On the other hand, if you pick another date as the start, the trend can show an increase. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at the graph and see that it isn't much of a trend either way. The variability far outweighs any trend which can't be ascertained with the limited data. It certainly doesn't follow CO2 concentrations unless of course there is something in your brain which makes you hallucinate it.
As I stated in a related question earlier today, I am glad you alarmists are admitting that there is no catastrophic consequence to our CO2 emissions so there is no real reason to enact your proposed solutions.
So apparently you are still standing by the ridiculous claim that the graph you provided somehow shows some precipitation trend caused by CO2 or were you just randomly posting a graph? If the former, that is indeed truly pathetic.
Somebody doesn't quite understand cause and effect. Precipitation absorbs CO2 in the water allowing it to be fixated chemically and sequestered, that's how our atmosphere changed from it's original almost entirely CO2 atmosphere to what it is now. To try to turn this around to say a lack of precipitation runs counter to alarmists arguments is just the ridiculous nonsense desperate people try to perpetrate when it's obvious they have been wrong.
"There appears to be nothing unusual about the extremes of wetness and dryness experienced during the twentieth century, or about recent changes in ocean circulation, sea level, or heat content, that would require atmospheric carbon dioxide forcing to be invoked as a causative factor. Natural variability in
the frequency or intensity of precipitation extremes and sea-level change occurs largely on decadal and
multidecadal time scales, and this variability cannot be discounted as a major cause of recent changes
where they have occurred.
Theoretical climate models indicate atmospheric moisture will be enhanced in a warming world, and therefore global precipitation should have increased in the late twentieth century. Although the empirical
evidence is not fully conclusive, it increasingly indicates no temperature-related intensification of
the hydrological cycle has occurred recently over the global land surface."
No-one genuinely hoping to understand anything goes to c3headlines for "information". Trevor shows c3headlines twisting the NOAA data to create faux outrage among the gullible. Here's atip - go to the science source for the facts, not the lobbyists for comment and misinformation.
Second - Any question based on the denier made-up term "CAGW" (expect to point out that it's not a science term) shouldn't be taken seriously.
>>he total lack of precipitation extremes over the last 15+ years is completely counter to the CO2-based CAGW hypothesis that alarmists believe in fervently.<<
AGW theory never predicted precipitation extremes for the last 15+ years – and anyone with the slightest knowledge of frequency signals and a properly functioning brain can easily figure that out for themselves.
The fact that Deniers think AGW theory is in any way based on model forecasts it a testimony to their limitless stupidity, weak minds, laziness, and fundamental dishonesty.
The article you linked to claims to show precipitation in the US since 1895. They claim to have got the data from the NOAA. But guess what happens when you really do go to the NOAA and plot precipitation since 1895. This…
All non solids, like co2, gases, exhaust, smoke, etc. that rise into the upper atmosphere separate into nothingness by natures chemicals so the suns rays can warm earth as earth rotates to grow plants that give food and oxygen so all species survive like its been doing for millions of years. Global Warming ended 11/28/2012. Have a nice day. Mike
"U.S. extreme climate change from CO2 non-existent."
Well, DUH.
1) Nobody that's credible has predicted extreme climate change already.
In fact, the reality is that it's only AGW deniers that talk much about it.
And, they've invented the CAGW term -- and blame it on others.
2) Interesting how the graph bias makes CO2 look like there's been a 10 fold increase, rather than a 40% increase.
3) One does wonder where you got that chart from.
OH, update says a climate change denier site. Surprise, surprise.
15 years is too short to show a climate trend.
Even if it was, there is a lot of variability, and that is just the USA.
Yep. I have been posting evidence of NO changes in droughts across the world or in the US.
Now keep in mind that the warmers hold the entire burden of proof. They are making claims of change caused by the reason they give. To add to the level of the burden of proof they hold, they are asking for trillions of dollars to be spent. Yet instead of providing evidence of droughts increasing, they show future models of model of models to hypothesize that sometime in teh future it MIGHT happen.
At the same time, the NEWS, is telling the public that AGW is CAUSING DROUGHTS IN CALIFORNIA and that THIS is causing the forest fires. Now forest fire fighters are "on the front lines of climate change".
Of course this does not bother the climate "scientists". Why should they care that the public is being misinformed? Its not like they are real scientists.
So we have this straight. Not only are news organizations telling people that CO2 is causing droughts, when there is no evidence in even a rise in the number of droughts. But they are stating with certianty that CO2 is causing the droughts in California, as if the cause of the weather in one location can be narrowed down to CO2. Then they are making the link of droughts to forest fires entirely NOT accounting for the many other factors that affect forest fires. THEN they are comparing climate change to being at war.
Misinformation upon misinformation upon misinformation. And watch what happens. We have 3 climate "scientists" that frequnet this site. I can guarantee they will be outraged. They will see the lies, KNOW they are lies, KNOW that the public should NOT be lied to in this manner and they will be outraged.
But they won't be outraged by the lies. They will be outraged that people have the audacity to say that this is a lie. Evidently, climate science has become SOOO corrupted by politics, that a politically-correct lie is more acceptable to climate scientists than the truth.
Trevor,
Too bad you unwittingly demonstrated no change at all. You showed what happens when different timepoints are picked for highly variable time-series data. Now given droughts and floods are being blamed on CO2, yet we cannot even show a change in precipitation, how can you justify this???
You can see the data. You know very well the link made by warmers and can see that link is false. You act like you have won a point, but you know better. This is the bias I have discussed and correcting the nutballs that think the world will end, does not eliminate that bias.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01a3fd3875a6970b-pi
The total lack of precipitation extremes over the last 15+ years is completely counter to the CO2-based CAGW hypothesis that alarmists believe in fervently.
