Global Warming: loading the extreme weather dice

I guess people who have no honor,resort to your level when they lose an argument.
Ill take that as a concession on your part ,unless you choose to dispute the data.
Nice try.

 

Anyone can create a "graph" to "prove" anything. Your graph and it's lack of citation only proves your own gullibility. Your previous link to Forbes simply reenforces that gullibility, and I provided ample, cited evidence that what you said is demonstrably...wrong!

Icarus

 

Not honorable.
You are a loser ,and not an honorable one.

 

Heres the best song Ive heard in a long time.
This is so Canadian .Reminds me of Kate and Anna Mcgarrigle from the 80s only 100 times better.
Warning ,Its used in a commercial.

 

Bob,
That's a healthy attitude. I would point you to the latest NOAA fact sheet on it, or maybe national geographic

http://nrc.oarhq.noaa.gov/sites/nrc/Documents/SoS%20Fact%20Sheets/SoS.Fact.Sheet.Tornadoes.and.Climate_FINAL_May2013.pdf

Tornadoes and Global Warming: Is There a Connection?

At least for tornadoes, which seems like the latest blame ghg, the evidence is appallingly vacant. Now Trenberth, a meterologist by education, would like to convince you otherwise, but even in his peer reviewed papers, he can't find any evidence hotter means more. In fact that is why he started waving his hands and saying if you can't prove its not man, it must be man.

If by extreme you mean things like the oklahoma tornado then this may enlighten you

Even grist is making fun of the warming and tornadoes talk
Can we blame climate change for the tornado that took out Moore, Okla.? | Grist

What about Sandy? Wasn't she more extreme. Sparse phenominon often give people bad impressions. Sandy never got above above a cat 3, and was not a huricane at landfall. In 1938 the new england hurricane was a cat 5, two orders of magnitude bigger. Now insurance has a lot to do with the Sandy damage, people build a huge amount in harms way, thinking 1938 would never happen again, and there is a warming aspect to sandy. The sea levels were higher because of warming, but did warming cause the hurricane? Not according to common sense or most of the attribution studies.

GHG make the planet warmer, and raise sea levels. Huricanes and Tornadoes are complicated weather phenominon, not prone to easy explanations that contradict the long term statistics. If huricanes are caused by warming, why was sandy so small? Why aren't more hitting the north east?

 

Because extreme events are analogous to fighting over weather as a marker of climate change.

You might as well be asking why was there snow in small_mind, DeniaLand this year, when there hasn't been for a decade.

• C. Deser, R. Knutti, S. Solomon, and A.S. Phillips, "Communication of the role of natural variability in future North American climate", Nature Climate Change, vol. 2, pp. 775-779, 2012. Communication of the role of natural variability in future North American climate : Nature Climate Change : Nature Publishing Group
• E. Hawkins, and R. Sutton, "The Potential to Narrow Uncertainty in Regional Climate Predictions", Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 90, pp. 1095-1107, 2009.An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

 

Austin, there are so many factors that go into uncommon events such as Hurricanes that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to point at one and say "that was due to GW".

Weather is chaotic.
Climate is not.

Weather occurs in a climate and is affected by it.
When you raise the amount of water in the atmosphere that will have an effect.
When you raise the temperatures of the seas, that will also have an effect.

We don't understand perfectly, or in some cases even adequately, exactly what these effects are.

So what are the best weather indicators of global warming?
Those for which we have a lot of data and a good understanding of.

The number of high temperature records vs the number of low temperature records, both day and night, seems one of the most straight forward ones to me.

 

Some think the little ice age was quite chaotic, but yes, I like where you are going with this.

We should be pretty clear here, at least according to NOAA. Added heat does not mean added moisture. Added heat means you have the potential for more moisture. When it comes to tornadoes, it is very clear that statistically they do not happen in the hottest months. The heat worse does not compute there, in fact the pieces I pointed you to theorize less tornadoes if the US gets hotter. Supercells will die out without forming tornadoes. On huricanes the theory is not more but in different locations. Huricanes look for differentials, and these differentials will likely move.

I'm not sure why we need weather indicators. Are not thermometers enough?

Certainly the world's temperature is rising. What I was putting out was information about 1 type of extreme weather, tornadoes, that people seem to be improperly attributing to ghg. Read the theories.

As NOAA cautions when ever people get mad, just because we don't have any statistics that show ghg correlate with tornadoes, doesn't mean someone in the future might not find some correlation. But equally we should be cautious at looking at too little data. There were not as many people in the country 50 years ago. Look at cat F1-F5, forget the F0 tornadoes that likely are simply increasing because we have weather satellites recording the things. Don't look at $ insurance losses, as these are skewed heavily by people building where huricanes are likely to hit.

 

As I have said, attribution studies are missing the point, but consider the converse:

How confident would a reasonable climate scientist be, that an extreme weather weather event had no climate change component ?

This question can be asked in the context of insurance against extreme events:
Should a competitive insurance company raise rates now, given a 50 year timeline ?

 

From the Grist opinion piece sited above
Can we blame climate change for the tornado that took out Moore, Okla.? | Grist

Now you can act like an db, like some of those twitter posts, and say OMFG this is climate change. And your small group of believers may smile and clap at how smart you are, and how dumb those disbelievers maybe. But when people read more balanced information, you likely look like a giant douche. That is not likely to get people politically on your side to actually help fix some real problems.
You can act a little better like Mayor Bloomberg and say ghg will increase storm surges and cause lots of damage. That is supported by the facts, and sounds a lot less hysterical and douchey. Now limiting the size of soft drinks to combat obesity, totally db move bloomberg. At least he got the warming stuff right.

 

Bob, you just have to remember that
more ghg -> more energy -> more tornadoes
more ghg -> less shear -> less tornadoes

When you combine both predictions, you lose the prediction of more ghg->more tornadoes. Its a balancing act, and it takes statistical evidence over long periods of time to try to test the hypothesis. Only when you cut off the time period, and say only look at tornadoes since 1980, do they look like they are increasing.

 

That's why NOAA has attempted to measure the conditions, and hasn''t found an increase in conditions likely to produce to tornadoes. It also has attempted to look at long histories to find again no pattern. There is a lot of data, and lack of a pattern in historical data does not mean we will not find one in the future as more data is collected because of better satellite coverage.

I don't understand this. Artic temperatures also are greatly changed by season. It is predicted the locations in the ocean where hurricanes will form will change. How will seasons change tornadoes?

 

Exactly.

Yes severe thunderstorms can happen even in weak shear, but a different type type of thunderstorms structure is favored in these conditions - pulse cells.

As it is, most supercell thunderstorms DO NOT produce tornadoes. Even high instability and strong shear environments aren't necessarily going to produce tornadoes.

 

Simply put, I don't think you can attribute tornado activity (greater or lessor) to climate change per we. Certainly not one series of tornados. What I think you can say with reasonable certainty is that increasingly, climate change is effecting historic weather patterns, leading to anomalous events, be they tornados, severe rain and snow events, hurricane frequency and intensity.

Trying to draw a line between one and the other is a fools errand since..weather ( and extreme weather) happens. If you simply look at the climate model predictions over the last generation and see how (within general parameters) are coming to pass, only a fool could conclude that it is coincidence.

The real question is, are we going to wait yet another generation to accept reality and actually take steps to change out MO to do something about it, even though it will be orders of magnitude harder by then?

What I fail to understand from the denial community is the potential costs of effective change is fairly small in today's dollars, while the economic and environmental benefit is quite large (larger than the cost by most estimates!) so why don't we do it?

It seems that the answer is either Hubris, or selfishness! There can be little argument that the movers and shakers in the Petro/carbon industry are protecting thier on interests, even to th e point of orchestrated misinformation campaigns, but what is everyone else's excuse?

It is only going to get worse (how much worse MIGHT be a point of argument) and it is only going to get more expensive to fix (if it can be "fixed" at all)!

Have a good day,

Icarus

 

Who are you calling fools? Do you think NOAA is foolish for trying to answer the question of whether tornado activity has increrased or become more severe because of ghg? Or would you not aknoledge that extreme weather is a vague and poorly defined term. That when something happens, people especially those that want to defend changing the null hypothesis feed the airwaves and claim! Ah ha, that tornado is proof its global warming, and its your fault. Just as they get on their private jets and add to ghg.

Would not a more honest discussion, stop with the political rhetoric - there is a tornado in oklahoma, or a huricane in new orleans we have never seen anything like this if it wasn't for .... causing climate change. Yes if we only outlaw florescent light bulbs the huricanes and tornados will stop.

Look at the data and decide for yourself. What if next year we find data that ghg reduce the chances of tornado damage? Would you then say burn all the oil. We need to use more fossil fuel to prevent tornados? In the face of zero evidence for attribution, do you really want to push a non-science agenda.

Only a fool would fake the science so far to prove tornadoes are caused by xyz inspite of the data, and expect the country to fall in line. I think the Alex Jones conspiracy was more likely, that the government has a weather machine and it might be trying it out in oklahoma. Sure they might not, but who wants to take the chace. The government may turn its weather machine on your town. It seemed more well reasoned than Trenbreth's even though tornados aren't actually increasing, we think they might, and it might be because of ghg, so why not say the Oklahoma tornado's are proof of the evils of global warming.

Now one really strange fact about this tragedy is this. Colburn and Inhoff voted against Sandy disaster relief saying the country should not increase the deficit to help those communities. Maybe Jones is right, those guys are in the government, and seem to want to hurt the country, maybe others in the government wanted to hurt their state. Is that any more far fetched than saying if we had only passed cap and tax this tornado wouldn't have happened?

We get a degree of truthiness here. If you think ghg are bad, why not blaime anything bad that happens on them. I got in a car accident, it must be global warming. I mean, what else could it be

 

If you a actually read and understood what is said: " Trying to draw a line between one and the other is a fools errand since..weather ( and extreme weather) happens. If you simply look at the climate model predictions over the last generation and see how (within general parameters) are coming to pass, only a fool could conclude that it is coincidence. "

Read more: Global Warming: loading the extreme weather dice | Page 3 | PriusChat

You would have realized that drawing a line between ANY weather event and climate change was a "fools errand". What I also said, and what the point of the polemic was, if you look at the predictions of climate scientists in the last generation or so, and fail to recognize that these predictions are indeed coming true, and to "that only a fool could believe it to be coincidence"

My point is not to argue wether or not climate change has increased the frequency or intensity of things like Hurricanes or tornados, but simply that the climate models predicted that more extreme weather was going to become "more normal" going forward and indeed this seems to be happening!

Icarus

 

I am not quite sure how you want to say coming to pass. The predictions from the peer reviewed research on hurricanes seems much more predictive than the grey literature included in the IPCC. That peer reviewed research says hurricanes are not likely to increase in frequency, they also seemed to say katrina might have increased in strength by 2%-3%, this is quite conrary to the al gore and hansen predictions. Or do you want us to now say a random tropical storm that was quite do for the north east now is a cat 5 hurricane?

I don't remember any predictions for tornadoes, but I certainly see the scramble to say they are the extreme weather that Hansen predicted. Can you find these predictions for me, and peer reviewed liturature that says they have happened.

Then you are arguing that natural phenominoma must be caused by climate change right. I mean these things are on multi decadal paths.

Why would you insist that we can't separate say, a high temperature in Omaha from a huricane that hits galviston. Galviston was destroyed by a huricane long before climate change was even in the language, but I have seen the claim that the one that hit again in the last decade must have been caused by man. I mean it might have been weaker than the other one, but huricanes aren't predictable..... unless you watch movies, or read, or think.

I find the gore/hansen blame of ghg for katrina exactly as scientific as the claim that gays caused it. Oh wait we have more gay people now, that must have caused sandy too. whoops.

I hope you can see the problem with the reasoning, that we should not use science to understand if ghg are increasing tornado frequency. I find it quite beligerent when people say it must be global warming what else could it be. Then they fail to look at the quite random data for past tornadoes.