That's not a hailstone...

rambot · Oct 20, 2021

JustSomeBloke said:
Most of the politically motivated, malicious geo-engineering and weather modification will stop once the COP26 circus has ended, and the assorted climate-change clowns and NWO tyrants have all flown back home on their fossil fuel powered jets.

Politically motivated geo-engineering? Wow. For a conspiracy, there's a lot of buzz words jammed into that.
Geo-engineering causing major hail= No Proof
Climate change gunning for a New World Order= No Proof

comana · Oct 20, 2021

Estrid said:
Hmm.
Not likely i will analyze insurance claims for the past 100 years.
Id want to at least see what part is due to what is being insured.

Id be far more interesred in actual weather repirts.

Fwiw, we note that going by the geological record, it appears we'd be
about midpoint in an interglacial cycle.

AND, that wild fluctuations in climate charaxterizes both the
ending phase of a glacial advance and the onset of the next.

I know its stylish to attribute everything from a bird hitting the
window to big typhoon in the south china sea to "agw".

Does it really matter what the ultimate cause is. The fact is that droughts, floods, fires, increasingly severe storms do affect people and changes to how we live are real.

Estrid · Oct 20, 2021

comana said:
Does it really matter what the ultimate cause is. The fact is that droughts, floods, fires, increasingly severe storms do affect people and changes to how we live are real.

Of course it matters.

comana · Oct 20, 2021

Estrid said:
Of course it matters.

What actually matters is how humans respond.

Estrid · Oct 20, 2021

comana said:
What actually matters is how humans respond.

Which is like totally related to the cause, if there is even
really something to respond to.

comana · Oct 20, 2021

Estrid said:
Which is like totally related to the cause, if there is even
really something to respond to.

Preparing for increased flooding, fires, intensification storms, etc does not need a known cause but does need action. All I’m trying to get at is that some people are overly focused on whether it is human caused or not when whatever the cause we are dealing with the effects.

Estrid · Oct 20, 2021

comana said:
Preparing for increased flooding, fires, intensification storms, etc does not need a known cause but does need action. All I’m trying to get at is that some people are overly focused on whether it is human caused or not when whatever the cause we are dealing with the effects.

If nobody guessed that floods are often a result of bad watershed management
they might build dams and dikes and put everything on
stilts instead of stopping logging on the hills.

"Overly concerned" are those who would put up a guardrail
at the dangerous curve.
While the more practical would station an ambulance there to
shorten response time

klutedavid · Oct 20, 2021

Paulos23 said:
The info my company has on hail storms over the years and the damage they cause in Colorado agree with you. Hail storms and other types of weather have been getting worse, and it can be traced to climate change.

I can see the future.

Mwhaaaaaa.

But I cannot see when we get 100 pound hailstones.

Me get new crystal ball, the one I have is cloudy.

Estrid · Oct 20, 2021

klutedavid said:
I can see the future.

Mwhaaaaaa.

But I cannot see when we get 100 pound hailstones.

Me get new crystal ball, the one I have is cloudy.

Do you read WSJ?

Ana the Ist · Oct 20, 2021

Tanj said:
'It does look like it's an Australian record': Giant hailstones fall on North Queensland

"may have created the largest hailstones seen in Australia since records began."
"We've seen some convincing images of hail up against a tape measure of 16cm,"
"Hail that size has a terminal velocity of well over 100km an hour."

Welcome to Australia, where even the weather wants to kill you.

16cm? I'm American so I don't know exactly how big that is....but I imagine it's close to 3 feet.

On the upside, perhaps those giant hailstones will drop during the next major wildfire and essentially stomp it out.

Ana the Ist · Oct 20, 2021

GreekOrthodox said:
"Gordon's ALIVE???"
"Now is the time to strike. "

And heck Timothy Dalton is Prince Barin, James Bond AND a Time Lord, so we've got that going for us as well!

A Time Lord? Like in the movie Time Bandits?

rambot · Oct 20, 2021

Ana the Ist said:
16cm? I'm American so I don't know exactly how big that is....but I imagine it's close to 3 feet.

On the upside, perhaps those giant hailstones will drop during the next major wildfire and essentially stomp it out.

closer to 6".
1"= 2.5cm~
1'=30cm~

Estrid · Oct 20, 2021

Ana the Ist said:
16cm? I'm American so I don't know exactly how big that is....but I imagine it's close to 3 feet.

On the upside, perhaps those giant hailstones will drop during the next major wildfire and essentially stomp it out.

Eze to figure! Im like 153 cm tall.

Presbyterian Continuist · Oct 20, 2021

MMXX said:
I'd be more afraid of all the Tolkien geeks.

Disclaimer: I'm a Tolkien geek.

Funny...I live in NZ and have never met one.

GreekOrthodox · Oct 20, 2021

Ana the Ist said:
A Time Lord? Like in the movie Time Bandits?

As in Doctor Who.

Ana the Ist · Oct 20, 2021

rambot said:
closer to 6".
1"= 2.5cm~
1'=30cm~

....thanks for clearing that up.

rambot · Oct 20, 2021

Ana the Ist said:
....thanks for clearing that up.

Ana the Ist · Oct 20, 2021

GreekOrthodox said:
As in Doctor Who.

Never watched it. Time Bandits on the other hand may be the most underrated of all time themed sci-fi movies.

The protagonists are as big as these 3 foot hailstones that I'm hearing so much about....and after many adventures across many different time periods and places, they manage to defeat the evil "cenobite" at the end of the movie. He was either an evil cenobite...or an evil inspector gadget. It was hard to tell.

JustSomeBloke · Oct 20, 2021

Paulos23 said:
Hail storms and other types of weather have been getting worse, and it can be traced to climate change.

If you mean hurricanes, then you couldn't be more wrong. The politicisation of science at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been known about for quite a long time.

Back in 2005 the hurricanes expert tasked with contributing to IPCC reports resigned, because he didn't like the way his research was being misrepresented to push a fake-news, climate-alarmist narrative.

Below is Chris Landsea's resignation letter:

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from
participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the
part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become
politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC
leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my
decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC
process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world
that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be
altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an
author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment
Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic
of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and
tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the
upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead
Author---Dr. Kevin Trenberth---to provide the writeup for Atlantic
hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I
thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of
what is happening with our climate.

Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane
section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a
press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to
warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense
hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The
result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly
connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by
anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and
reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is
apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in
such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media
sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global
warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press
conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting
hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that
press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor
were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current
research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable,
long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones,
either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and
2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the
hurricane record.

Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent
credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon
hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of
Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and
rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even
this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of
the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate,
2005, submitted).

It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an
unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global
warming. Given Dr. Trenberth's role as the IPCC's Lead Author responsible
for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside
of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very
difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the
assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify
themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements
far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the
credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish
our role in public policy.

My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how
he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr.
Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current
understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed
when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the
misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the
IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking
as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an
IPCC lead author; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or
misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference
and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and
that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even
though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection
between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw
nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth's unfounded pronouncements to
the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must
undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.

It is certainly true that "individual scientists can do what they wish in
their own rights", as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested.
Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress
in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific
discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a
scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead
Author for the IPCC has used that position to promulgate to the media and
general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was
caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written
in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR. This becomes
problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed
hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as
the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth's pronouncements,
the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our
climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost.
While no one can "tell" scientists what to say or not say (nor am I
suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and
entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of
view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much
care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC. It is of more than
passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views
on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the
Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several
presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation---though
worthy in his mind of public pronouncements---would not stand up to the
scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I
view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being
scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr.
Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I
have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.

Sincerely,

Chris Landsea

17 January 2005

klutedavid · Oct 20, 2021

Estrid said:
Do you read WSJ?

When you have a crystal ball the WSJ is not necessary.

Mwhaaaaaaaaaa.

That's not a hailstone...

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Psalti Chrysostom

Aggressively serene!

Senior Member

Aggressively serene!

Unacceptable Fringe Minority

Well-Known Member

Similar threads