....

[bluewave]

.....

[PhillipS]

http://www.environme...t Pours vUS.pdf

Global warming is happening now and its effects are being felt in the United States and around the world. Among the expected consequences of global warm- ing is an increase in the heaviest rain and snow storms, fueled by increased evapora- tion and the ability of a warmer atmosphere to hold more moisture.

An analysis of more than 80 million daily precipitation records from across the con- tiguous United States reveals that intense rainstorms and snowstorms have already become more frequent and more severe. Extreme downpours are now happening 30 percent more often nationwide than in 1948. In other words, large rain or snowstorms that happened once every 12 months, on average, in the middle of the 20th century now happen every nine months. Moreover, the largest annual storms now produce 10 percent more precipitation, on average.

Thank you for sharing the link to this paper. It supports what until now has been only anecdotal observations. Here in Texas, we've had a number of very heavy precipitation events in 2012 which have created the illusion of relief from last year's extreme drought. When we get a month's rain in a couple of hours most of the water runs off rather than soaking in. True, the run-off helps raise the level in reservoirs and stock tanks but in order to raise the soil moisture and really end the drought we need more frequent light to moderate rain events that soak into the ground.

Heavy storms can also be a disaster for farmers because they can beat crops down, making it difficult to harvest row crops conventionally.

But the pseudo-skeptics will point to the rainfall totals and claim that the drought is better because we've received our average amount of rain for the year to date.

[toronto blizzard]

I'm sure that you blamed last years drought on AGW as you are blaming this years drought also on AGW

[PhillipS]

I'm sure that you blamed last years drought on AGW as you are blaming this years drought also on AGW

Oh, it's not just me - the Texas state Climatologist, Dr John Nielsen-Gammon, feels that the drought was exacerbated by climate change. This is from a ThinkProgress post he wrote last summer:

Although Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) believes his state will “be fine,” in reality Texas is undergoing its most extreme drought, heat wave, and wildfire season in history. “The year 2011 continues the recent trend of being much warmer than the historical precipitation-temperature relationship would indicate, although with no previous points so dry it’s hard to say exactly what history would say about a summer such as this one,” Texas State Climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon writes. “Except that this summer is way beyond the previous envelope of summer temperature and precipitation.”

The Texas summer of 2011 is an unprecedented outlier in terms of drought and high temperature. By John Nielsen-Gammon, Texas State Climatologist.

There simply is no data that shows a warmer Earth will have a better, gentler climate - and an increasing amount of data indicates it will involve more extreme weather events. Or do you reject the data?

[tacoman25]

http://www.environme...t Pours vUS.pdf

Global warming is happening now and its effects are being felt in the United States and around the world. Among the expected consequences of global warm- ing is an increase in the heaviest rain and snow storms, fueled by increased evapora- tion and the ability of a warmer atmosphere to hold more moisture.

An analysis of more than 80 million daily precipitation records from across the con- tiguous United States reveals that intense rainstorms and snowstorms have already become more frequent and more severe. Extreme downpours are now happening 30 percent more often nationwide than in 1948. In other words, large rain or snowstorms that happened once every 12 months, on average, in the middle of the 20th century now happen every nine months. Moreover, the largest annual storms now produce 10 percent more precipitation, on average.

I only glanced through it, but is there a section that discusses what the actual impact on society is of having storms that once only happened once/year now happening every 9 months? Or having storms produces 10% more precip? It would seem that most of the truly damaging events would be quite disruptive/damaging (i.e. Nashville) even if they had been reduced 10%.

So instead of somewhere getting 6" of rain in three hours, they now get 6.6". How much difference does that truly make?

[Jonger]

Thank you for sharing the link to this paper. It supports what until now has been only anecdotal observations. Here in Texas, we've had a number of very heavy precipitation events in 2012 which have created the illusion of relief from last year's extreme drought. When we get a month's rain in a couple of hours most of the water runs off rather than soaking in. True, the run-off helps raise the level in reservoirs and stock tanks but in order to raise the soil moisture and really end the drought we need more frequent light to moderate rain events that soak into the ground.

Heavy storms can also be a disaster for farmers because they can beat crops down, making it difficult to harvest row crops conventionally.

But the pseudo-skeptics will point to the rainfall totals and claim that the drought is better because we've received our average amount of rain for the year to date.

Excuses are like.... Well, you know.

[Jonger]

I guess we just ignore the fact that most of the 2000's were in the middle of the pack. Nice try though.

[PhillipS]

Excuses are like.... Well, you know.

It wasn't an excuse, it was a prediction. Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit , is it?

[PhillipS]

I guess we just ignore the fact that most of the 2000's were in the middle of the pack. Nice try though.

We were specifically talking about last year and this year's drought. Try to keep up and not retard the discussion, please.

[gracetoyou]

I'm sorry but you cannot connect every weather event back to the same source. It's completely illogical. AGW is responsible for more precip, severe droughts, cold waves, heat waves, every tornado outbreak, every hurricane, lack of tornadoes & hurricanes...& anything else you want to throw in there. It's ridiculous!!!

[Msalgado]

I'm sorry but you cannot connect every weather event back to the same source. It's completely illogical. AGW is responsible for more precip, severe droughts, cold waves, heat waves, every tornado outbreak, every hurricane, lack of tornadoes & hurricanes...& anything else you want to throw in there. It's ridiculous!!!

Its actually not ridiculous that AGW would be responsible for events that are "opposites" of each other at all. Solar energy drives the entirety of our climate system and that includes droughts, extreme precip etc etc. Increasing the energy in the system as a whole has different results in different locations is to be expected.

I'm not saying AGW is the result of ever extreme weather event at all; I'm simply saying you're out of hand dismissal of events that may seem to be opposites of each other is completely wrong.

[WeatherRusty]

I'm sorry but you cannot connect every weather event back to the same source. It's completely illogical. AGW is responsible for more precip, severe droughts, cold waves, heat waves, every tornado outbreak, every hurricane, lack of tornadoes & hurricanes...& anything else you want to throw in there. It's ridiculous!!!

The question really is can you expect the average of weather events to shift along with a shift in average global temperature and specific humidity? How could anyone think not?

[ben4vols]

We were specifically talking about last year and this year's drought. Try to keep up and not retard the discussion, please.

Yeah, it's not the fault of the PDO...it's got to be AGW. I've been watching the Olympics and noticed a lot of Olympic swimming records being broken, is this not due to AGW too?

[gracetoyou]

The question really is can you expect the average of weather events to shift along with a shift in average global temperature and specific humidity? How could anyone think not?

I live in W. Ky & one thing W. Ky. folks will tell you is normal is that we usually have always had terribly humid summers; however, this summer as hot as the air temperature has been most folks will tell you that it hasn't felt bad at all because our humidity levels had been crazy low. We are for the first time all summer experiencing higher humidity.

My point is when you want to see something so bad in everything you see then you probably will. It's more like weather variability than greenhouse gases. The climate is not nearly as sensitive as some would have us believe. I think the extremely higher C02 levels in atmosphere & global temps no longer sky rocketing have to be taken into account that maybe our dear "experts" may not have the tiger by the tail afterall. Not to mention the busted predictions they've made concerning hurricanes, where temps would be now, an ice free artic by now, etc.

[gracetoyou]

Its actually not ridiculous that AGW would be responsible for events that are "opposites" of each other at all. Solar energy drives the entirety of our climate system and that includes droughts, extreme precip etc etc. Increasing the energy in the system as a whole has different results in different locations is to be expected.

I'm not saying AGW is the result of ever extreme weather event at all; I'm simply saying you're out of hand dismissal of events that may seem to be opposites of each other is completely wrong.

I agree with solar variation being probably the greatest climate drive although we still do not know enough about it to say with certainty how, but I cannot buy AGW. When studying climate history, the sun makes sense; AGW does not to me at this point. If AGW was the major driver in the 30yr rapid temp climb then it just makes no sense to me why temps would ever level off from 1998-2008 (supported by peer reviewed paper, blamed Chine aerosols...go figure) & actually slightly decline the last three years despite higher C02 levels.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/pnas-201102467.pdf

However, if solar activity were the major driver then to me it makes sense since we had a historical high modern maximum in the last half of last century.

And since the maximum started declining at the tail-end of the last century as we are headed toward a minimum then yea it makes sense to me that global temps would begin to level off & gradually begin to drop as the solar cycles are getting shorter & shorter.

We are in almost the middle of solar cycle 24 & if 25, 26 are smaller as predicted & 27 doesn't even show as some are predicting then we'll have our answer if indeed the sun is the major player in the global temps...not the only cause but the major cause. Sure I still believe that other natural factors have an influence also but the Sun may indeed be the greatest driver. I also believe that greenhouse gases can have a affect on climate but I do not believe they have up to this point. 100-200 years from now...possibly but I believe what we've seen the last 50 years in weather is purely from natural factors.

Now, don't get me wrong...I'm very open in the debate. I was absolutely sold on AGW for years but the temps leveling off after 1998 really led to me to really studying diligently all sides of the issue. I believe that there is extreme talk from the AGW side & the natural climate side that has gained us nothing. Then there are the more level headed voices from both sides of the issue that have actually been a great help to me. We are in great need of a much greater objective debates & much less subjective.

[ben4vols]

But you know that those oscillations are riding on top of a warming climate.

Yeah, it is really noticeable when watching the current Nino flounder around.

[gracetoyou]

But you know that those oscillations are riding on top of a warming climate.

!

So, he states the cause of the warmth & doughts is that we are in a warmer & drier atmosphere & climate due to greenhouse gases which has accelerated the other natural factors (-PDO) which cools the ocean making U.S. drier...yet the paper of this thread is about greater precip due to a warmer & moister atmosphere & climage due to greenhouse gases. HMMMM!

This is the crap I'm talking about. You cannot have it both ways. Either it's a warmer & moister atmosphere due to greenhouse gases or it's a warmer & drier atmosphere due to greenhouse gases. IT CANNNOT BE BOTH!! Even a child can understand that. I wonder sometimes if these folks listen to what they say.

Make sure you watch that video clip before commenting on my post so that you understand it.

[gracetoyou]

If you would have taken the time to read the previous posts, then it would have become obvious that you are looking

at it the wrong way.

http://www.americanw...ast-as-thought/

These changes suggest that arid regions have become drier and high rainfall regions have become wetter in response to observed global warming," said Dr Durack, a post-doctoral fellow at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

http://www.scienceda...20521104631.htm

You still cannot say that. Texas had a terrible, terrible drought last year but recovered fairly quickly. There doing quite well right now with the exception of the Panhandle region. Sure, it takes time when there is a severed drought to get rain in there & begin the recovery. It has to do with the soil moisture content being zip & therefore no evaporation & a significantly drier atmosphere regionally...it's the desert affect. We're experiencing that now in W. Ky. We've had rain on both sides of us for two straight days. It forms to our west, waters SE MO but when it begins to get close to the Mississippi River & move into W. Ky it literally disappears only to reform a couple hours later to our east. But when it ever finally begins to get wet a wetter, cooler pattern will begin.

On a global scale I think it's just climage variability. Heck, we not even into a couple hundred years of good record keeping yet & we have a lot to learn.

[donsutherland1]

However, if solar activity were the major driver then to me it makes sense since we had a historical high modern maximum in the last half of last century.

This hypothesis has already failed to stand up. Notice how solar activity has been, on average, flat or very slowly declining since 1950. However, just as solar activity has flatlined, global temperatures have been rising steadily. In other words, solar trends and temperature trends have diverged. This divergence suggests that solar activity has had little influence on recent temperature trends (mid-20th century onward). In fact, even the recent deepest and longest solar minimum since at least the early 20th century did not erase the earth's energy imbalance, much less bring temperatures back to their earlier climatic baselines (NCDC's 20th century average or GISS's 1951-80 baseline).

[WeatherRusty]

I agree with solar variation being probably the greatest climate drive although we still do not know enough about it to say with certainty how, but I cannot buy AGW. When studying climate history, the sun makes sense; AGW does not to me at this point. If AGW was the major driver in the 30yr rapid temp climb then it just makes no sense to me why temps would ever level off from 1998-2008 (supported by peer reviewed paper, blamed Chine aerosols...go figure) & actually slightly decline the last three years despite higher C02 levels.

http://wattsupwithth...s-201102467.pdf

However, if solar activity were the major driver then to me it makes sense since we had a historical high modern maximum in the last half of last century.

And since the maximum started declining at the tail-end of the last century as we are headed toward a minimum then yea it makes sense to me that global temps would begin to level off & gradually begin to drop as the solar cycles are getting shorter & shorter.

We are in almost the middle of solar cycle 24 & if 25, 26 are smaller as predicted & 27 doesn't even show as some are predicting then we'll have our answer if indeed the sun is the major player in the global temps...not the only cause but the major cause. Sure I still believe that other natural factors have an influence also but the Sun may indeed be the greatest driver. I also believe that greenhouse gases can have a affect on climate but I do not believe they have up to this point. 100-200 years from now...possibly but I believe what we've seen the last 50 years in weather is purely from natural factors.

Now, don't get me wrong...I'm very open in the debate. I was absolutely sold on AGW for years but the temps leveling off after 1998 really led to me to really studying diligently all sides of the issue. I believe that there is extreme talk from the AGW side & the natural climate side that has gained us nothing. Then there are the more level headed voices from both sides of the issue that have actually been a great help to me. We are in great need of a much greater objective debates & much less subjective.

According to classical physics, a body floating in the vacuum of space and receiving warming radiation from its Sun will acquire a temperature determined by the energy absorbed minus the energy emitted by the body. For a simple black body which absorbs all wavelengths of radiant energy incident upon it, and also emits with 100% efficiency, that would be the end of the story.

However, the Earth is not a perfect black body, it is a gray body with a changeable albedo near 0.30. It does not absorb all the energy incident upon it. This complicates things somewhat. If the albedo did not change then we could still compute an accurate temperature for the Earth as viewed from outside.which would only be subject to changes in solar energy output. That temperature, however, would not be the temperature at the surface, but rather high up in the troposphere of Earth's atmosphere. The reason for the elevation of what is called the 'effective temperature' is the presence of greenhouse gases and clouds within the atmosphere. Because the atmospheric temperature decreases with increasing height, this means the surface becomes warmer than the effective black body temperature.

The reason intrinsic output of the Sun does not have much impact on this scenario is simply because total solar radiance changes so little over time. For solar variability to equal the radiative forcing given by a doubling of CO2 (3.7W/m^2) the Sun's energy output as received at Earth would need to increase by 22 watts. It is known to vary by only about 1.3 watts over the 11 year solar cycle and likely a similar amount since the Maunder Minimum of sun spot activity.

[Jonger]

I'm sorry but you cannot connect every weather event back to the same source. It's completely illogical. AGW is responsible for more precip, severe droughts, cold waves, heat waves, every tornado outbreak, every hurricane, lack of tornadoes & hurricanes...& anything else you want to throw in there. It's ridiculous!!!

Team-AGW isn't quite that extreme, but they do drop these stories in the news for the less informed audience to "start talking" about it.

[bluewave]

Team-AGW isn't quite that extreme, but they do drop these stories in the news for the less informed audience to "start talking" about it.

If you don't believe the studies,then why don't you sift through all the data and see if you come up with another conclusion.

You can start by looking at the data on the NCDC extremes page. You can also verify the studies by looking through

each climate site and noting the increase in extreme precipitation. Maybe you should be grateful that someone else

is willing to do all the hard work of putting the together in a report for everyone to read.

[gracetoyou]

Yea, everyone's right...it's all AGW. Case closed!! We KNOW that solar activity & ocean cycles have very little to do with the weather & that C02 has taken control. If you really believe that, even if you believe in the greenhouse effect, then you are completely naive & believe everything you read as long as it comes from the right people.

[PhillipS]

Yea, everyone's right...it's all AGW. Case closed!! We KNOW that solar activity & ocean cycles have very little to do with the weather & that C02 has taken control. If you really believe that, even if you believe in the greenhouse effect, then you are completely naive & believe everything you read as long as it comes from the right people.

Nice rant - thank you for sharing that with us. But as much as I hate being the bearer of bad news - the GHE is real. It's grounded in basic physics and corroborated with over a century of data and observation. You'll just have to deal with it.

[toronto blizzard]

Nice rant - thank you for sharing that with us. But as much as I hate being the bearer of bad news - the GHE is real. It's grounded in basic physics and corroborated with over a century of data and observation. You'll just have to deal with it.

Of course the GHE is real. Without it there would be no life on Earth.

[PhillipS]

Of course the GHE is real. Without it there would be no life on Earth.

I agree with you completely. But Grace wrote "... if you believe in the greenhouse effect, then you are completely naive & believe everything you read ..." - seems pretty clear that Grace denies the validity of all of the physics, theory and data supporting our understanding of the GHE. Sad really.

[gracetoyou]

I agree with you completely. But Grace wrote "... if you believe in the greenhouse effect, then you are completely naive & believe everything you read ..." - seems pretty clear that Grace denies the validity of all of the physics, theory and data supporting our understanding of the GHE. Sad really.

We KNOW that solar activity & ocean cycles have very little to do with the weather & that C02 has taken control. If you really believe that, even if you believe in the greenhouse effect, then you are completely naive & believe everything you read as long as it comes from the right people.

You took my post way out of context. My post is above! I didn't say if you believe in the greenhouse effect your naive. I said if you believe that C02 "has taken control" & that natural factors are not having any effect your naive. And I stick by that! There's not near enough C02 in the atmosphere at this point for C02 to "take control" of the weather.

[WeatherRusty]

You took my post way out of context. My post is above! I didn't say if you believe in the greenhouse effect your naive. I said if you believe that C02 "has taken control" & that natural factors are not having any effect your naive. And I stick by that! There's not near enough C02 in the atmosphere at this point for C02 to "take control" of the weather.

While we are being critical of context, no one has said that natural factors are not having any effect on climate change. Natural factors have not magically disappeared, they exert a temporary effect of limited strength on climate just as they always have. Nothing big would be happening to the climate if it were not for mankind's activities. We wouldn't be dealing with the potential for a minimum 2C increase in global temps without the introduction of mankind's CO2 emissions.

We wouldn't be expecting a future of flooding rains, semipermanent drought due to an expansion of subtropical ridging (global band of sinking air) or rising sea level measured in feet anytime soon due to natural causation.

[PhillipS]

You took my post way out of context. My post is above! I didn't say if you believe in the greenhouse effect your naive. I said if you believe that C02 "has taken control" & that natural factors are not having any effect your naive. And I stick by that! There's not near enough C02 in the atmosphere at this point for C02 to "take control" of the weather.

Did I change your words in any way? If your post was poorly worded, well, whose fault is that? Perhaps a remedial english course would help you write clearly.

Now, how about providing links to peer-reviewed research to support your assertions? Otherwise it is just your unsupported opinion which, honestly, is not very impressive.

BTW - it is "you're", not "your"

[gracetoyou]

Did I change your words in any way? If your post was poorly worded, well, whose fault is that? Perhaps a remedial english course would help you write clearly.

Now, how about providing links to peer-reviewed research to support your assertions? Otherwise it is just your unsupported opinion which, honestly, is not very impressive.

BTW - it is "you're", not "your"

Global temps did not leveled off & did not warm from 1998-2008. Here's a peer-reviewed paper that documents that:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/pnas-201102467.pdf

Why would that occur if C02 is in control? PPM continued to rise during that time but without the temps responding.

For the last three years global temps have slightly declined despite even higher amounts of C02 ppm. Why if C02 is in control?

Despite a very warm U.S. the global temp is -0.005 according to satellite observations. The warm U.S. has caused AGW mania, yet the truth of the globe is usually not mentioned:

Again...you would think that warming would not have leveled off in 1998 & dropped the last three years with so much more C02 ppm IF C02 is the major driver.