For a Lack of Better Words.... W.T.F?

[LocoAko]

Most meteorologists aren't specialists in long-term patterns. To get a meteorology degree and work in most positions, you don't need to reflect much on the placement of ENSO events, long-range NAO patterns, etc....you are basically learning the physical equations that define the atmosphere and create the models, which is very different from the type of weather historian/enthusiast that you'd find here. I talk with a lot of met majors regularly, and most of them know less than I do about whether DC has snowy winters in a west-based Niño, whether tornado events have occurred in a strong Niña gradient pattern and which historic events fell into this category, etc...We've also seen some of the most prestigious forecasting centers in the world, such as UKMET, make egregious predictions that favor global warming over multidecadal patterns, only to get burned as the Met Office did in Winters 09-10 and 10-11 (fool me once shame on you, fool me twice...) Many of the top forecasters/climatologists such as Hadley, Arctic sea ice panel '09, Hansen etc have favored excessively the argument of global warming, and for sure it is a simpler one to make to the public against a complex series of long-term oscillations that influence weather differently in each place and combine in novel ways all the time.

Me not having an interest in DC's snowfall climatology != a Ph.D. from MIT being clueless about climate.

FWIW, I am not too aware of any "Climatology" degrees... you can easily go into Atmospheric Sci. once at the graduate level and study climate change. Trying to draw that distinction is silly. Yes, there's a chance that the TV meteorologist you see doesn't know much about climate change science, but even at the undergrad level here we have a Climate Dynamics course and once in graduate school many people specialize in that specifically.

[Isotherm]

Me not having an interest in DC's snowfall climatology != a Ph.D. from MIT being clueless about climate.

FWIW, I am not too aware of any "Climatology" degrees... you can easily go into Atmospheric Sci. once at the graduate level and study climate change. Trying to draw that distinction is silly. Yes, there's a chance that the TV meteorologist you see doesn't know much about climate change science, but even at the undergrad level here we have a Climate Dynamics course and once in graduate school many people specialize in that specifically.

I'd also argue that meteorologists should be very knowledgable with climatology, considering it's weather over a longer span of time. In order to make accurate long range forecasts (or really any forecast for that matter), a meteorologist should be well versed in prior climatic trends at that particular location, i.e., what's average for their area. I see climatology and meteorology as basically unified -- there's significant overlap b/t the two.

[LocoAko]

Bingo. To even call the peer-reviewed process objective is laughable in my opinion. Manipulation and biases are at play on both sides of the fence, which is why it's often so difficult to extract the truths from these papers.

Ah yes, the "we can't trust the peer review process!" defense.... Brilliant.

[Isotherm]

Ah yes, the "we can't trust the peer review process!" defense.... Brilliant.

Not what I said at all, and you being a fellow science major should know that its important not to take peer-reviewed studies as 100% truth, verbatim. We've got to critically examine them on our own as well; some peer-reviewed studies may be mostly clean, while others have more manipulation than we think on the front. It's also important to look at why the study is being done, who it's being done for, and for what purpose.

[tacoman25]

Isolating on the Gulf, I agree. The Gulf shows no discernible long term trend.

There appears not to be a direct causative connection between the tornado outbreak and Global Warming, although the current warmth and moisture certainly aided in their production.

The cold air coming from the north is the other important ingredient you are conveniently leaving out of the equation. There has been a lot of unusually cold air pouring into the PNW/Northern Rockies/Plains this spring, another common component of La Nina. That was undoubtedly a huge part of this outbreak.

[WeatherRusty]

The cold air coming from the north is the other important ingredient you are conveniently leaving out of the equation. There has been a lot of unusually cold air pouring into the PNW/Northern Rockies/Plains this spring, another common component of La Nina. That was undoubtedly a huge part of this outbreak.

Conveniently leaving out? Fine, throw contrasting cold air into the pot and mix gently to add instability and turbulence.

Look, it is far easier to conclude changes on a synoptic scale than to predict something as isolated and complex as tornadoes. We can more confidently look for increases in heat waves, flooding rains, droughts, sea level rise and a decrease in ice coverage as general features of climate as the world warms. Mesoscale and smaller features are and will continue to be more problematic to predict.

[tacoman25]

Conveniently leaving out? Fine, throw contrasting cold air into the pot and mix gently to add instability and turbulence.

Look, it is far easier to conclude changes on a synoptic scale than to predict something as isolated and complex as tornadoes. We can more confidently look for increases in heat waves, flooding rains, droughts, sea level rise and a decrease in ice coverage as general features of climate as the world warms. Mesoscale and smaller features are and will continue to be more problematic to predict.

Well, you were clearly looking for something linked to unusual warmth and possibly AGW as a contributor to this outbreak...when in reality, the conflict of airmasses that sparked the outbreak featured cold air that was probably more impressive/unusual. And the warmth in the Gulf of Mexico, as VAwxman pointed out, was very typical of La Nina springs.

I agree that the case for increasing heat waves and sea level rise due to AGW is certainly stronger than for something like tornadoes.

I'm just sick of people/the media always looking to make some sort of connection to "climate change" after every extreme event, and inevitably someone ends up on the AGW soapbox. The much larger role that natural patterns/variability play is usually ignored.

[BethesdaWX]

Why then might the average +ENSO and -ENSO have warmed over the course of the past century? La Nina is cooler than El Nino, but they are both warmer than decades ago equal to the time smoothed anomaly.

Well now that we have a Mechanism for it ( )... It is largely, In My View, Solar Magnetism, (as well as the +PDO/+AMO/+IOD phase and some AGW mixed in too). Magnetism is what determines how many GCR's can penetrate to the LT to affect the LLGCC amounts.... in 2 peer reviewed & successfully reproduced physical experiments,.....(The SKY experiment, and the CLOUD experiment) Scientists were able to actually create Aerosol Molecular Clusters of Acid & Water Vapor thru GCR & Magnetic opposites, which are the Building Blocks for CCN's...this was done an a reaction chamber.

While the Climate System is more complicated, a >5% decrease in GCC could equate to all the warming seen seen since the LIA (as demonstrated in the study), (and this is very possible given the GCR drop we've seen)... so yes it is one explanation... since the Oceans would be absorbing even more energy that they would with the AGW theory, since higher frequency SW radiation penetrates deeper into any body of matter.

The other explanation is massive AGW based upon positive feedbacks within the Climate system... which is unlikely to have correctly assessed the feedback aspect.

Remember the Oceans will Absorb increasing SW incoming energy, which can not only penetrate deeper into the Oceans, but also the fact that the Oceans take a Long Time to reach equilibrium after the GCR level bottoms out.

[BethesdaWX]

although the current warmth and moisture certainly aided in their production.

This makes zero sense, the "warmth & humidity" don't mean sh*t if the synoptics are negatively altered.

And, the troposphere has Not seen an increase in Humidity....Satellite analysis begins around 1980, before that is reconstruction, so 1948-1979 is a recon, and after 1980 is satellite.

Where is this supposed increase in Water Vapor? Again.....feedback miscalculations will doom the AGW Hypothesis

Official NOAA Data: