It's just another nonsense claim, like all of these.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.ht...
They have made every kind of ridiculous claim that you can imagine.
For example:
Did you know that Global Warming killed the Loch Ness Monster? (sad hun? - no word on Godzilla)
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scotti...
How about the poor polar bears who's penis sizes are shrinking because of Global Warming (pollution). I wonder how many researchers they lost getting those measurements.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14485634/
Global Warming is said to be hurting the brothel industry.
http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/39945-globa...
When they can't even produce empirical evidence of warming being driven by CO2, which is their flagship claim, you should not expect that they can produce any evidence for any of their secondary bizarre claims.
-----------------------
It is not possible to prove empirically unless we could increase the CO2 concentration while holding all other variables constant - and observe the drought conditions over a long period of time. Not quite possible.
However, it is possible to establish a link using evidence, statistical data, and reason. Increasing the concentration of CO2 increases the temperature of the Earth. That is based on sound theory and has been observed. Hansen established, using statistics, that the warming we have had has greatly increased the chance of extreme temperatures. Extreme temperature, especially in the interior of continents, is the main cause of droughts, and that has has been observed by a decrease in the Pearson drought index. That does not constitute proof, but it is something we should not ignore, as the effect of drought on our water and food supplies is unquestionable.
Michael Mann said it. He said there is a missing negative feedback, which during the Medieval Warm Period caused La Nina like conditions. These LaNina like feedbacks to global warming from CO2 would produce more drought in the Southwest. The other implication of this is that climate models vastly overstate warming.
Completely ridiculous, Gary essentially claims you cannot claim scientist are linking bad weather to AGW but when they do it's based on science. You are never going to convince these people using any type of rational argument. For these people the more ambiguous contradictory, or tenuous the claim the stronger the science. You don't need to be a psychologist to recognize these people suffer from a mental disorder.
Haha. So you post something concerning how a certain part of the world has had increased rainfall and your response to people who actually answer your question is "Australia has had droughts and floods as far back as anyone can remember?" Did rainfall not exist before, in your mind, the vast climate conspiracy started?
Are you and your followers really that separated from reality that you think there would not be more droughts in a warming world?
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/...
Scientific articles like this aren't very hard to find. Why do you have such a problem?
I'll even provide you some data sets you can look at.
http://precip.gsfc.nasa.gov/
https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/project/nva...
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/
http://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/information/
Not being contributed to AGW. Australia would be regional. There's not a climate scientist in existence that can touch that.
http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/Desert...
You can find plenty of Alarmist sites that state a increase in biomass is a bad thing. You got to know what I'm thinking...Let them go "F" themselves. Their arguments are so lame and contradictory. Nobody can afford the time for the Alarmist version of the Magical Mystery Tour.
Gary F: "For example, one of the reasons for thinking that global warming could result in changes in the frequency and intensity of extreme events is based on observational (empirical) evidence gathered from the study of naturally occurring extreme events."
You know of no such thing!
Quote by Will Happer, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”
Notice the last sentence of Will's quote. If you have empirical evidence to the contrary, let us see it! That is what Kano asked for. You fellows are always ducking the issue with your lame theories and telling us that you know, when that ain't so.
PROVIDE PROOF! PROVIDE PROOF! That is what Kano asked for. Do you even know enough about the English language to discern what the asker is asking for? People are locked up in insane asylums because they are delusional. What they think they know, ain't so. Are you bucking to join them? Are you that anxious to get free ObamaCare?
In answer to your question: I haven't seen any, so far. Especially on this site.
@Big G... and the "September rainfall was above average across most of Western Australia" also proves CAGW is real. You see, everything proves CAGW is real. Everything. Wheeeeeeeeeeeee... Nothing can disprove CAGW. Nothing....Wheeeeeeee... Climatology is not a religion. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeee....
That’s a Bullshlt question – and you do not need to be a scientist to figure out the reason why.
>>I can provide proof for greening of our Earth, and increased rainfall in the Sahel, 14% increase in plant biomass in Australia.<<
That is not proof of anything.
What you have are statements about observations of data that you have never seen and know nothing about. Even if the observations are valid, that ‘fact’ does not make them evidence of anything. Even if you could establish the observations as evidence of something, that is not proof of any cause – which is what you are demanding for answers (even though you have been repeatedly told that there is no “proof” in science.
Since all you are offering are observations of some things, your argument is countered by simply noting that droughts exist.
=====
edit ---
>>However that does not stop warmists continually citing droughts and floods being caused by CO2 even though they have no evidence.<<
That is completely false. Scientists and scientific organizations have repeatedly pointed out the difficulty in attributing individual events to AGW.
Deniers are also wrong in claiming that linking extreme events with AGW is some kind of post-hoc attempt to find supporting evidence for AGW (and it has nothing to do with any “correlations”). Produce one example of a professional scientific study that uses correlation analysis to claim that extreme events are caused by increased atmospheric CO2 – or anything. Just because Deniers claim that is the case does not make it so.
AGW theory has always – from the start – predicted a possible link between global warming and extreme droughts and floods - and that connection has never had anything to do with correlation analysis. It was, and is, based on our knowledge of thermodynamics and atmospheric physics.
For example, one of the reasons for thinking that global warming could result in changes in the frequency and intensity of extreme events is based on observational (empirical) evidence gathered from the study of naturally occurring extreme events.
We know that anomalies in precipitation minus evaporation (P-E) are an important variable in surface hydrology – and research has shown that variability in P-E anomalies is driven mostly by atmospheric circulation patterns (rather than being driven by changes in humidity).
AGW theory predicts that the net flux (the long-term mean distribution of P-E) will, itself, become more extreme as the atmosphere warms and retains greater moisture – with the result that wet areas will get wetter and dry areas will become drier.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/dr... Try the Aussie govt
That CO2 causes droughts (this for Chem Flunky) because I can't.
I can provide proof for greening of our Earth, and increased rainfall in the Sahel, 14% increase in plant biomass in Australia.
but I can't find any proof for droughts, maybe I am not looking hard enough.
Sorry.....I can't seem to find anything either.
There is absolutely no hope that you'll be educated. None.
