Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

So do you want me to answer or not, you are even arguing with yourself now.

I didn't even need to go into the raw data the charts told me enough, the charts published by Munich Re (on many newsites etc) went back to 1980 with the financial data yet Pielke choose to only use some of that data. Why is that?

Now as I said yesterday Pielke has probably already blogged an excuse for this, so you should be able to find it if you want.

 

Blah blah balaah.

Where is the source of your information on what Piekle left out of his data, you did not look at it, so you read that somewhere, where from?

I want to read it myself
That is not unreasonable. Yet you avoid giving the source of your information

 

Surely you know or maybe it wasn't just a claim that you had posted a chart without looking at the details.
Take a look at the time frame of the original munich Re info.

It may well be there are issues with the munich Re data but the whole point still stands ie you posting stuff without reading it never mind checking its credibility.

 

@Tobes
Lets examine what the denier Mr Whitehouse says, isn't that how it works?

Essay by David Whitehouse
"Nasa says that 2015 was 0.13°C+/-0.10°C above 2014. The UK Met Office said that 2015 was 0.18°C +/- 0.10°C above 2014. Noaa says 2015 was 0.16°C+/-0.09°C warmer than the previous record which was 2014.
Noaa had only one month in 2015 cooler than the same month in 2014 – April. According to the Nasa data four of them were cooler than 2014 (April, May, Aug, Sept) whilst Hadcrut4 had eleven months warmer than 2014 with April tied. For September 2015 Nasa has it 0.08°C cooler than 2014 whereas Noaa has it 0.14°C warmer!"
The above is all entirely accurate. I have already covered that for NASA temp, and the above has NOAA and UK data, none match.


Despite what some scientists have said the large increase over 2014 is far too great and swift to be due to a resurgence of forced global warming. It must be due to short-term natural variability, and you don’t have to look far to find it. 2015 was the year of the El Nino which boosted the year’s temperature. (In the Nasa press conference about the 2015 global temperature see how long it takes the presenters to mention the El Nino).
Also correct as that is not how CAGW works, there are no "jumps" to hot weather if CAGW is slowly warming the planet. Only natural variability and phenomenon like El Nino and the blob of heat in the pacific since 2013 cause the really anomalous jumps in GAT, these are facts. The actual temperature record also backs this, even the adjusted one.

“We are seeing an extreme climate state,” Randall Dole, a meteorologist working for Noaa, told the Journal Nature this week. He was commenting on the recent El Nino which is one of the strongest on record, with ocean temperatures reaching as much as 3°C above normal in parts of the central and eastern Pacific. It was unsurprising then that Nasa on releasing its global temperature measurements made reference to it. “Only once before, in 1998, has the new record been much greater than the old record by that much.” This clearly because 2015 was like 1998 a strong El Nino year.
One point to notice however is that even without the El Nino that made the fourth quarter much warmer than the preceding three 2015 would have been a record for the Nasa data. If the first six months of the year had been repeated then it would still have set a record. Curiously though no single month during that period (indeed up to September) set a record for that particular month demonstrating how close the global temperature has been over the past decade or so.
Again correct, none of the months up to El Nino effects from September on were records, so NOAA's claim is falsifeld by their own data. Yet no one noticed. I explained that very thing about Finland's average temperature. Much of the warming came from El Nino and the rest can more logically be put down to natural variability rather than a crackpot hypothesis that has been disproven by the laws of physics and observation


A Little Bit On Top
If the El Nino dominated the last part of the year another example of natural variability was dominating the earlier months. (legitimate point as the first months were nothing to write home about, all the hysteria came from the El Nino added effect late on in the last 3 months which had a dual effect as it raised max and min temp anomalies, a double effect on the record) The reason for the first nine months of 2015 being collectively warm can also be found in the Pacific. As I reported in September 2015 conditions in the north Pacific were unprecedented in 2015. The Summer warmth of 2014 had not dissipated. Indeed since 2013 the so-called Pacific “Blob” has kept a million square km of ocean 3°C above normal, (indications are that as of January 2016 the blob is beginning to dissipate.) “The temperatures are above anything we have seen before,” said one scientist in my article. (This is a valid question about the source of "unusual warming in the first 9 months, the phenomenon called the "blob" is not imaginary, a heat concentration over the ocean, there since 2013, that accounted for "warmth" before El Nino, then El Nino added warmth, and no sooner than it begins to dissipate a massive freeze sets in, so was this phenomenon and El Nino holding off this freeze that's slammed into the US Mexico Canada Japan *****lia and all over the place? That would be the reverse of global warming)

So 2015 was an exceptional year for weather, which is not the way some scientists presented it. None of them mentioned the “blob” and as for the El Nino it was the “little bit on the top” merely a minor contribution. Most of the temperature rise was down to forced global warming, they said.
Again true, the first you ever heard of the "blob" was never as you never read this or my post about it.. Pacific Heat Blob https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blob_(Pacific_Ocean) The never mentioned that? Strange so two heating phenomenon nothing to do with CAGW have been ****ing with the weather. This throws massive doubt on the hottest year claims, unless you are a lobotomised Guardian reader.

This is all slight of hand, and a little inaccurate. The IPCC says that just over half of the warming since the fifties is forced so most of the contribution to 2015′s temperature is natural variability. In addition the factor that makes 2015 warmer than its previous years is not a resurgence of forced global warming but the “blob” and the El Nino. Hard to argue against that as the facts about El Nino and the "blob" are verifiable.

One can speculate what the temperature of 2014 and 2015 would have been without the blob and the El Nino. Some scientists have said it made only a few hundredths of a degree difference, others have said it makes a few tenths of a degree difference.
I think the few hundredths of a degree suggestion is wrong. So can the combined “blob” and El Nino account for the 2015 temperature excess of 0.13, 0.18 or 0.16°C depending on your choice of data set? It could. Indeed without the “blob” and the El Nino 2015 could have been cooler than 2014. Without the “blob” 2014 could have been cooler than 2010. Also true Note word "could", NOAA only use that when they say it "could" be worse.

This makes suggestions that the “pause” in annual average global surface temperatures has been “terminated” premature. The “pause” will not be ended by weather but by forced global warming. Consequently it is unsafe to use 2015 in any trend analysis to eliminate the “pause.” It is essential to view the 2015 along with subsequent years to catch the cooling La Nina effect. Only this way can the El Nino contribution be properly assessed.
The main conclusion that can be drawn about 2015 is that it was a truly exceptional year for weather, and for misleading press releases.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now really to say about the last bit, all I needed to point out are in the first bits.

So, this denier has put forward a pretty good argument as to why NASA and NOAA are in fact full of ****

This is why people like this guy are called deniers, a term used to try stop people listening to them.
denier, conspiracy theorist, tin foil hat wearer, all terms invented to shut down rational debate.

 

I have got this fellas

It's all about polar bears and how Sisu claimed global warming is a myth based on the fabricated numbers that have increased

 

Still no source of your claim, so I assume you just made it up. Nothing to see here

 

Do the numbers show they have decreased ?

 

The chart says explains the data so, what is your problem with it? Are you accusing him of splicing the data as is a fact, Munich Re data is not complete.

The chart still shows that loss per % of GDP is down, which is the point, you have cooked up some false argument

 

Why do you need a source? Everyone can see that the chart you posted does not go back as far as the financial data from Munich Re. Its nearly as clear as the fact that you post stuff without fully understanding it.

 

No I didn't I said Pseudo science not myth, it actually fits the definition of pseudo science.

Like the only way to convince a flat earther is to bring them to space, the only way of convincing a global warming believer is the world freezing over.

 

Irrelevant, you were making assumptions about the Munich Re data, yet you dont know what you are talking about, and why laughy faces when you are all porn raged? You aint laughing.

The chart shows that losses per % of total is down, and it is valid as there is much more to get damaged today compared to 1990.
So whatever crap you are on about is besides the point.

Stats show less % of damage compared to 1990 yet we were told "extreme weather will kill us all"

50 million climate refugees by 2010 the UN said, and then made a balls of hiding that fact, embarrassing

 

Yes, but the lads didn't understand it is done by % of GDP because there is also more to damage today compared to 1990. More homes cars businesses and people.

and in 25 years of supposed loss to "bad mmkay" weather, we are losing less per % of total, yet the clima loons hysteria of 30 years says we should be seeing tornadoes in Peckham by now

 

The only way this scam keeps going is by convincing everyone to forget every batch of utterly failed predictions.

IPCC said milder winters, Met said no snow by 2010. Arctic will be ice free by 2010, no 2011, no 2012, we meant 2013, type, 2014, this time 2015.. no no no.
Arctic is smashing records right now in ice extent and antarctic sea ice is now twice the size of Antarctica itself

 

Sorry to say this, but the cost of storm damage is a totally spurious argument.

More damage is likely to occur as time goes by because buildings, trees etc age and weaken. A heavy snow fall or strong wind may not have damaged your roof or broken a branch off the tree you parked your car under 5 years ago, but this year a little less weight of snow or gentler wind may just be enough to see it off.
Cost will go up as time goes by, % of GDP is irrelevant.

 

How have you replied to something I have only just posted

(yet quoted my Polar Bear post)

 

Why do you need a source? Everyone can see that the chart you posted does not go back as far as the financial data from Munich Re. Its nearly as clear as the fact that you post stuff without fully understanding it.

Indeed they do if you close to stick to Mr Pielkes reasoning for choosing that particular timeframe rather than going back to 1980 as the financial data does. Hence the claim of him framing the data to suit his argument ie cherrypicking.

That's before we even start on your claim re there being more stuff to damage than in 1990 yet ignoring the other issues that have already raised to you.

In some ways the fact that you posted a chart that has has been derided elsewhere for its methodology is not news to anyone as it is your MO, what dies make me laugh though is yet again you posting stuff without checking it because it suites your argument.

 

How have you replied to something I have only just posted
No that was just a weird temporal issue


If you want to include that then you have to start including a lot of other metrics other than what you mentioned. It's statistics, and anecdotal, it's not proof of anything.

You say % of gdp is irrelevant in showing % of GDP? that was the point, and it is but one of a whole data set of information and statistics from Piekle's blog. In the context of Loss per GDP, it cant be more relevant

it wasn't even an argument till TT made it one over Munich Re.

 

@Diego I think you are confusing the issue, the clima loons have been saying for 30 years weather is going to get so much more extreme and damaging.
% of how much we lost in 1990 to % of how much we lost 2015.. is certainly useful in looking at whether extreme weather is actually causing more damage.

Obviously you need to go beyond that, but it does suggest, which is all it ever could do, that the clima tards are delusional and weather is not actually more extreme at all

severe dropoff of hurricanes in the US could mean that is why 2015 has a lower % of GDP loss.
Which debunks the claims of more and more powerful hurricanes

 

I hear you are as handsome as you are wrong

 

Just seemed a pointless thing to bring up, as I have said things weaken with age and as you have pointed out we now have more people living on flood plains (with even more homes scheduled to be built on them).
The cost of storm damage will continue to rise but will prove nothing about the severity or frequency of the storms, just that it costs more to put things right.