[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Except that's exactly what I'm talking about. Troutman's link says temperatures will get more extreme(and have been trending that way), which is what I'm taking issue with.

Except Troutman is correct. Globally temperatures continue to rise and we are witnessing extremes. I know its easy to ignore what is happening around the globe when it is not so bad in your backyard, but the extremes are being reached everywhere. Climate is shifting.

Tornados: no, and I've never seen any evidence they are increasing in Alberta, have you? As far as I know the trend in the US isn't up at either. This doesn't really indicate it is:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-in...atology/trends

I dunno. When I was a kid I never saw or heard of a report of a tornado in Alberta. Now there are dozens a summer.

Forest Fires: I'm not sure how you separate climate change, and not other issues like forestry management. If you can prove regions are getting hotter and drier, then ya, perhaps, but the last time I looked for that information I actually found most of BC had gotten wetter.

Oh, its a forest management issue. I get it. Everyone get out the rakes and lets clean out those forests! Them Norwaynians know how to deal with this mess! And wait, I thought the solution was to plant a trillion trees? Won't those trees exacerbate the forest management issue?

Floods: Again, really crap management. We worry of flooding in Calgary, yet strip the Elbow headwaters of forests. I've yet to hear of any reasonable attribution of flooding to climate change where it wouldn't have been more likely caused by other factors like paving over the earth, putting people where they shouldn't be and deforestation. There is no increasing flooding trend in Calgary or area, certainly nothing you could say "climate change has caused these to be more frequent".

So where they are managing the forests it is responsible for floods, but when they keep the trees it is the cause of forest fires. You've yet to hear any reasonable attribution because you don't understand how these reports are written or what the data says. You wants a scientific report to come right out and say that x is causing y. That is not what research papers will ever say.

I'll agree that all of these have been predicted, but I dispute the accuracy. I have yet to see any reasonable explanation, and correlation between events and rising temperatures. What does the IPCC have to say? I'll paste the whole section so I don't get accused of cherry picking.

You aren't interpreting what the report says with any accuracy. Again, these reports are not going to say that x is causing y. They are going to look at the data and determine whether there is confidence in a thesis/model coming to fruition and then explaining why the thesis/model may be inaccurate. The report identifies there is high confidence in the data for land-based temperature changes, and there is significant data to support the land-based precipitation models. Where the confidence is low is in the ocean-based models, which they explain could be related to a poleward shift in the main Northern and Southern Hemisphere extratropical storm tracks. Many of the low confidence areas they speak to are a result of lack of data to fully explore the issue. It is not them saying that they are not observing changes, it is just there is not enough of a longitudinal data set to make any conclusions.

What this tells us is that there is large variability globally, and confidence in the predictions. So again, my POINT is that if they can't prove it for a specific region(namely, Alberta or Canada) stop attributing these disastrous effects when they are regional. All it does is make people say "well I'm not seeing that here, so the whole theory is BS." Be honest with the public. Use facts. That is going to include the perhaps uncomfortable position that climate change is actually going to improve life and prosperity for Canada(though not all regions, and there will also be negative effects).

The bolded is your position. You are not seeing anything in your backyard, so it is bull####. What you are ignoring are the effects around the world and outside your backyard. You're also looking for anything that will confirm your particular bias instead of letting the body of work of the entire community inform your understanding of the matter.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

This is the best research I could find:


https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-war...nd-hurricanes/


I won't post all the text, but you can read the summary in section F. Sounds fairly inconclusive.

You should have posted all of the report, because it does not say what you are suggesting. Again, these reports are not going to make a statement that x causes y. They are going to speak to the data and to what the evidence says. Sections A through E state what they observe and the data. The trend data is obvious in these sections.

Section F states:

"In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm activity support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic. While one of our modeling studies projects a large (~100%) increase in Atlantic category 4-5 hurricanes over the 21st century, we estimate that such an increase would not be detectable until the latter half of the century, and we still have only low confidence that such an increase will occur in the Atlantic basin, based on an updated survey of subsequent modeling studies by our and other groups. A recent study finds that the observed increase in an Atlantic hurricane rapid intensification metric over 1982-2009 is highly unusual compared to one climate model’s simulation of internal multidecadal climate variability, and is consistent in sign with that model’s expected long-term response to anthropogenic forcing. These climate change detection results for rapid intensification metrics are suggestive but not definitive, and more research is needed for more confident conclusions."

The data suggests that numbers have not increased, but intensity has. The model suggests that a consistency in this state will not be achieved until later in the century. This means that they believe the numbers of hurricanes will not increase, but extreme nature of them will. This will include higher wind speeds and much greater rainfall. This will make them more severe and destructive in nature. The report also says that they have noticed a now pattern that is highly unusual but is consistent with the model. To determine the consistency of this unusual trend they are suggesting more research, data collections, and analysis is needed.

Yes, they make no absolute conclusions, but these papers never do. Science does not make absolute conclusions because that isn't how science works. Even gravity remains a theory that is tested and retested. Science will continue to re-examine the data and continue to report variations in data and models. It's what science does. The report does have a lot of information in it. You just have to read the whole report in context to understand what the report is saying. Jumping to the conclusions of the report usually doesn't tell the whole story as ultimate conclusions are not usually made. The data analysis in the body is more telling. I would spend more time in the weeds there and get a sense of the trend data to understand effects.