Global Warming: loading the extreme weather dice

You forgot one,
AGW causes extreme weather.
After I just disproved your superstition that the Moore tornado was caused by increased heat.

 

My father used to say that theories can never be proved, they can only be disproved. However, he is a Prof of theoretical maths, and he used theory in the scientific sense, not the bullshit Mojo throws out.

As for Mojo's contention that he has disproved anything related to AGW -- well, that IS silly. Can a village idiot become an entertaining clown ? I doubt it, but it seems we will find out.

 

Oh My God.
I just realized you guys have no ability to understand factual information.
I have to use a stern tone of command voice to make you comprehend.
BAD DOG Bob , BAD DOG Sage.
(Imagine having your nose rubbed in your own excrement.)
Now do you understand the actual facts?
No ?
Then put these idiots down.

 

Mojo fixed it,, so I delete!

 

Furthermore this is just more of your strawman BS.
Attack me personally because you have no factual evidence.
Im disgusted .
Im disgusted to be associated with the left.
Because you are a bunch of BRAINWASHED IDIOTS.
Present facts or shut the f up.

 

Plonk.

 

Some degree of public consensus is required to address any large-scale issue including externalities, such as climate change appears to be. Consensus means that people with all types of initial opinions would find agreement. Not all of them, but certainly not zero.

All posters here, in our own way, represent some fraction or faction of the total range of thought on this issue. I suppose that it is useful to hear all of them and find out (if possible) how the people came to think that way. It is not necessarily possible to change someone's mind. But I suppose it is a necessary first step to learn about that mind.

This does not mean that I hold all opinions as equally valid. Rather that we are talking about people here. Not hyper-rational hypothesis evaluators. I don't think that 'scolding' (several examples above) is the way to get 'er done.

But you may not agree. Internet posters, in general, seem not to agree with me. But PC is most often an exception on the internet where we do enjoy finding out about other folks' points of view, which we might oppose most mightily.

I like the fact that it's different here.

 

"from the IPCC AR5 WGI Chapter 2 on extremes.

Here are a few:

• “Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is large spatial variability"
• "There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”
• “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”
• “In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”
• “In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems”
• “In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950”
• “In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low”"

Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: Coverage of Extreme Events in the IPCC AR5

 

The second-to-last bullet point in #150 is more or less a smackdown to Dai and Running's drought work, that we have discussed here before. Though smackdown is such an unattractive term

Having not read Chapter 2, I don't know if they looked at changing distributions of extreme high T through recent decades. Those have been published for US and Europe. Maybe for other regions.

 

I've had a chance to look over several of the chapters of the full report (AR5). This is what was said about changing distributions of extreme high T...


"...It is very likely that the numbers of cold days and nights have decreased and the numbers of warm days and nights have increased globally since about 1950...." (Page 2-4 of Chapter 2)


I've also had a chance to look over a few of the other chapters, specifically about the subjects about which I'm most interested (climate modeling and the linkage of "extreme wx" and AGW)...


"FAQ 11.1: If You cannot Predict the Weather Next Month, How can You Predict Climate for the Coming Decade?

While weather and climate are intertwined, they are in fact different things. Weather is defined as the state of the atmosphere at a given time and place, and can change from hour to hour and day-to-day. Climate, on the other hand, generally refers to the statistics of weather conditions over a decade or more.

An ability to predict future climate without the need to accurately predict weather is more commonplace that it might first seem. For example, at the end of spring, it can be accurately predicted that the average air temperature over the coming summer in Melbourne (for example) will very likely be higher than the average temperature during the most recent spring—even though the day-to-day weather during the coming summer cannot be predicted with accuracy beyond a week or so. This simple example illustrates that factors exist—in this case the seasonal cycle in solar radiation reaching the Southern Hemisphere—that can underpin skill in predicting changes in climate over a coming period that does not depend on accuracy in predicting weather over the same period....

...To make accurate weather predictions, forecasters need highly detailed information about the current state of the atmosphere. The chaotic nature of the atmosphere means that even the tiniest error in the depiction of ‘initial conditions’ typically leads to inaccurate forecasts beyond a week or so. This is the so-called ‘butterfly effect’....

…Decadal prediction systems nevertheless exhibit a degree of skill in hindcasting near-surface temperature over much of the globe out to at least nine years….

…Theory indicates that skill in predicting decadal precipitation should be less than the skill in predicting decadal surface temperature, and hindcast performance is consistent with this expectation…." (Page 11-56 - 11-57 (58 and 59 of 123) of Chapter 11: Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability)


Chapter 9 is devoted to climate modeling, but there not really anything new from AR4 that I can see.

AGW to severe wx linkage...


"…This indicates that an increase in the fraction of severe thunderstorms containing non-tornadic winds would be consistent with the model projections of increased energy and decreased shear, but there has not been enough research to make a firm conclusion regarding future changes in frequency or magnitude…. (Page 12-53 (55 of 177))

…Overall, for all parts of the world studied, the results are suggestive of a trend toward environments favouring more severe thunderstorms, but the small number of analyses precludes any likelihood estimate of this change…." (Page 12-54 (56 of 177) of Chapter 12: Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility)