Tiny:

Paul Homewood does the homework on whether December was the wettest ever.

Homewood reports only the England and Wales numbers because they go back further. UK numbers go back only to 1931, but the UK figure for December 2015 is highest at 612.1mm. Next highest is 1999 at 584.8, 1993 at 576.6 and 1986 at 560.5. Before that only 1959 and 1934 exceed 500mm.

Geronimo

You were complaining that climate scientists once blamed everything on climate change.

You are also complaining that they are not blaming everything on climate change.

I am confused.

I hear barrel scraping. Sometimes storm systems track to the south and Scotland is spared. Sometimes the storms track to the north and the south of England is dry. Sometimes the storms hit the bulls eye. To get a fair view of rainfall coming off the Atlantic you have to add the whole target zone together. Norway to Spain. Or are you saying that because there's more CO2, it's targetting the UK?

Or was Geronimo complaining that climate scientists blame everything on man made global warming? It's not the same thing. We all know that changing weather and even changing climate are caused by something. Some of it is probably caused by man made CO2. To attribure everything to CO2 is a sign of desperation.

Couple of months within hemispheres, couple of years between hemispheres. Sounds reasonable.

Jan 6, 2016 at 2:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man.

Except, that your earlier comment specifically suggested 2 months between hemispheres, when the data from a great experiment between the hemispheres shows that your guess is out by a factor probably much more than 20.
That may be good enough for climate science, but some of us hold ourselves to higher standards.

I didn't get Medieval on your ass because you actually took the trouble to use a question mark.
+1 for that. But will you learn anything from it?

Climate-changing data, started with the ascent of Mann. Since then, it keeps getting better, and more unreliable.

What experimental design would you suggest?

Jan 6, 2016 at 2:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM, it's difficult to think of a better experiment than the one already conducted, especially given the stringent regulation of radio-chemical experiments and an antipathy to nuclear war. If climate scientists choose to downplay the best experiment they may ever have on this matter, then that's their choice.

However, as a more direct answer to your question, EM, I would take the wasted money that is spent on "climate change" and direct it towards looking harder for cures to Multiple Sclerosis and other auto-immune diseases. If you know a well-solvated benefactor of like mind, I can certainly suggest some experiments, and direct them towards a former supervisor of mine. The guy is also good enough to teach for America, and is loved by students. He currently gets rewarded with things like a parking space at his University for being probably the best teacher in all the Americas.

You were complaining that climate scientists once blamed everything on climate change.

You are also complaining that they are not blaming everything on climate change.

I am confused.

Listen up EM, or you'll never get to become a school teacher and have delusions that you're the cleverest person in the class.

You do not get to say what you're interlocutor is saying in a discussion. If you have been teaching your young charges that you are doing them a disservice. I have never "complained" about climate scientists making every event evidence of climate science, what would be the point of that. I have observed that they have. Similarly I have now observed that the appear to have made great efforts to avoid blaming the floods on climate change.

The former is understandable, they've done something rather silly, in that the profession, presumably basking in the attention they were getting, have made assertions about the climate based on a period of time too short to make such assertions. It may be that they have grown aware of the foolishness of their prognostications and want to row back from there previous positions, I don't know, that was the idea of this thread, to put that idea out there to see if anyone else had a noticed, and if they had, had any ideas why this new reticence was occurring.

You either have a problem with your comprehension skills, not a great quality in a teacher, or you're continually trying to be a smart arse, not a great quality in a human being.

Michael hart

Are you mentally combining the two types of mixing?

Within each hemisphere you get a lot of mixing as weather systems rotate. At a conservative estimate they also move eastwards at about 10kt. A single CO2 molecule would drift 1000 miles in 4 days and circumnavigate the planet in six weeks.

The only way to mix air between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres is where the two circulation's meet in the tropics. The convection band around the tropics pulls air in from both hemispheres, mixes and lifts it, and then pushes it away northwards and southwards.

A single CO2 molecule might circumnavigate the world ten times a year, but only cross between hemispheres twice in a decade.

Geronimo

Sorry, I was mixing up you specifically. on this thread and the general run of sceptic complaints.

Tiny said,

I hear barrel scraping. Sometimes storm systems track to the south and Scotland is spared. Sometimes the storms track to the north and the south of England is dry. Sometimes the storms hit the bulls eye. To get a fair view of rainfall coming off the Atlantic you have to add the whole target zone together. Norway to Spain. Or are you saying that because there's more CO2, it's targetting the UK?

Was that aimed at me? Your pal Homewood does a rubbish pice saying that the MO is wrong that December was the wettest month because in England and Wales he can find wetter ones. I point out that the 'wettest' applied to a bigger area, namely the UK, and you say oh but you should be adding in Norway and Spain too! I don't suppose you understand how silly an argument that is to a normal person.

By the way, Homewood doesn't like critical comments, does he? I posted one saying that the MO was talking about the UK and he replied with conspiracy ("Could it be because they have something to hide?"). My polite follow up was blocked or has yet to appear. That is the standard that realist blogs have to beat - not a tough one either.

But zone size Raff is arbitrary, that's the whole point. The 'biggest ever' claim is bollocks. Short records or ones that don't cover a big enough area are not suitable to make claims about. Those that do are just engaging in propoganda. We share our weather with Europe, the North Atlantic and even beyond. If single months of UK weather constitute climate change then in those months where weather or temperature are 'normal' can we claim the AGW is over? When it goes colder than normal can we claim that the ice age is upon us? And isn't a month an arbitrary concept anyway? Why not 'wettest 43 days'?

As I wrote elsewhere, the temperatures locally, nationally, hemispherically or even globally are not at their max. Despite their oddity for December they would not have been abnormal in the autumn or spring, let alone the summer. People are using this to prove something they can't achieve legitimately. Desperation.

It is not arbitrary to Homewood who wants you to know that England and Wales had record rainfall in 1873 (or whenever) and certainly not in December 2015. It is not arbitrary for you faithfully reporting that the Homewood says the MO is wrong and he right. Neither of you bothers to mention that the MO didn't even mention climate change in the story about records nor that it was talking about the UK not England and Wales, but when that is pointed out, the area involved suddenly becomes arbitrary. You are so desperate to prove to yourself that the exceptional rainfall was not climate change related that you discard any critical or skeptical faculties you may once have had.

Seems like 2016 has got off to an unprecedented normal start combining hyperbole with best evah conclusions about weather statistics that can't be trusted.

Is it known when rainfall was switched from measuring with imperial to metric buckets, and whether gallons were UK or US? Data adjustment is so much easier, the more variable factors have to be homogenised.

Sceptics are just countering the official lies, we're not tasked with telling both sides. Curiously you expect self funded members of the public to cover all sides when you don't demand the publicly funded scientists, media and politicians do the same.

Oh boy, more lies! But like every other time I've asked, you'll not be able to identify a lie. You are like a broken record.

Raff, a broken record has never been a problem to climate scientists who fill in the gaps.

I've gave a list Raff but you didn't agree with it. What a shock... not. No I won't repeat it. My core point has always been that if warmists want others to act, THEY have the onus of providing evidence. If the public reject the proof, it's not their job to prove their disbelief or come up with another theory. They don't have to make any concessions until there is great enough public agreement to force them to. Good luck with that. Sceptics just point out the holes in the consensus, it's not our job to make a note of them all.

EM,
As you seem to so easily do you confuse the skeptics properly pointing out that climate extremists are wrong on a long and growing list of issues with "complaining" that they are wither blaming too much or too little on so-called "climate change".
Do try and keep up.