....

[Vergent]

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

http://wattsupwithth...s-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.

We have a new troll. Good luck with that.

Your own citation.

We find

that this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase

in the sum of anthropogenic and natural forcings. Declining solar

insolation as part of a normal eleven-year cycle, and a cyclical

change from an El Nino to a La Nina dominate our measure of

anthropogenic effects because rapid growth in short-lived sulfur

emissions partially offsets rising greenhouse gas concentrations.

Classic cherry picking.

#9

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

[Vergent]

Why do the deniers lack imagination?

[CoastalWx]

Well don't forget that more spotters = more reports = catching smaller but intense mesoscale heavy rains than anybody could have seen in 1948. This is a given. NWS has done a big push with COCORAHS and people are naturally getting into the hobby with more and more spotters every year.

[CoastalWx]

I believe the study compared sites with a continuous climate record through the time period.

10 All-Time Rainiest Weather Days in Chicago

1. July 23, 2011 - 6.86"

2. September 13, 2008 - 6.64"

3. August 14, 1987 - 6.49"

4. July 12, 1957 - 6.16"

5. August 2, 1885 - 5.63"

6. July 27, 1966 - 4.71"

7. June 13, 1976 - 4.64"

8. June 25, 1959 - 4.58"

9. December 2, 1982 - 4.47"

10. August 22, 2002 - 4.45"

So nothing in the 90s and then the next one is in 1987? I don't deny we have had some incredible rainfalls, but there are so many things that go into heavy rain events. Is a cutoff low that dumps 10" of rain near DC last September a product of climate change?

[CoastalWx]

This study is a little ridiculous. I can pick out many examples where there are flaws.

[CoastalWx]

In mid-June 2012, a massive downpour

flooded Duluth, Minnesota, breaking

all-time rain records. Water levels in

the St. Louis River jumped 5 feet, reaching

record high flood stage. The deluge

destroyed roads across the region, and

flooded two-thirds of the city zoo, killing

all of the barnyard animals.1

A week later, a massive tropical depression

dropped more than 25 inches of rain

on parts of Florida, impacting hundreds of

thousands of people, many of whom were

forced to evacuate flooded homes.2

Yes, because tropical depressions never carry heavy rains. Many times they deliver more rains than hurricanes.

[WeatherRusty]

Grace,

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

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

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

Rusty

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.

Didn't you read what I posted? The science has reasonable answers for why temperature rise is not monotonic. Don't you believe natural variability is still having an impact?

[bluewave]

So nothing in the 90s and then the next one is in 1987? I don't deny we have had some incredible rainfalls, but there are so many things that go into heavy rain events. Is a cutoff low that dumps 10" of rain near DC last September a product of climate change?

More blocking with the increase in 500 mb heights could help to enhance the rainfall totals in certain instances.

This newer study is an updated version of previous work from the NCDC.

http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/sap3-3/sap3-3-final-all.pdf

[CoastalWx]

More blocking with the increase in 500 mb heights could help to enhance the rainfall totals in certain instances.

This newer study is an updated version of previous work from the NCDC.

http://downloads.cli...3-final-all.pdf

See that's fine if they mention increased blocking leading to high precip outbreaks...but then don't go citing water vapor as the reason. That study was not well thought out.

[WeatherRusty]

So nothing in the 90s and then the next one is in 1987? I don't deny we have had some incredible rainfalls, but there are so many things that go into heavy rain events. Is a cutoff low that dumps 10" of rain near DC last September a product of climate change?

How could it not be? Every weather event, large and small, is taking place in a warmer, more moist environment. Where conditions are otherwise conducive, the higher mixing ratio of water vapor will enhance rainfall rate where total column precipitable water is greater,

[bluewave]

See that's fine if they mention increased blocking leading to high precip outbreaks...but then don't go citing water vapor as the reason. That study was not well thought out.

I was talking about other recent studies. There can be numerous reasons for increases in local precipitation.

Different studies are focused on specific aspects of increased precipitation in regard to a warming climate.

http://marine.rutgers.edu/~francis/pres/Francis_Vavrus_2012GL051000_pub.pdf

[gracetoyou]

Grace,

Didn't you read what I posted? The science has reasonable answers for why temperature rise is not monotonic. Don't you believe natural variability is still having an impact?

Yes, but that's been my point all along. C02 is not "in control" as was stated by another poster. I do not believe that our climate is sensitive enough for a trace gas to sabotage natural factors. Can it or will it in the future have a greater impact? Possibly but there's still so much were learning. Like, studies showing the earth & oceans are doing quite well at absorbing C02, better than was expected...etc. Notice this paragraph:

Ballantyne, Tans and their colleagues saw no faster-than-expected rise, however. Their estimate showed that overall, oceans and natural ecosystems continue to pull about half of people’s carbon dioxide emissions out of the atmosphere. Since emissions of CO₂ have increased substantially since 1960, Ballantyne said, "Earth is taking up twice as much CO₂ today as it was 50 years ago."

The rest continues to accumulate in the atmosphere, where it is likely to accelerate global warming.

This new global analysis makes it clear that scientists do not yet understand well enough the processes by which ecosystems of the world are removing CO₂ from the atmosphere, or the relative importance of possible sinks: regrowing forests on different continents, for example, or changing absorption of carbon dioxide by various ocean regions.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2012/20120801_esrlcarbonstudy.html

I just think it seems way to early to jump on the C02 train just because we experienced accelerated warming from 1978-1998 during a +PDO which resulted in 4 of the strongest El Nino's ever recorded & extremely high solar activity. During the +PDO precipitation for the U.S. was way above normal & it was being blamed on AGW. PDO flips to it's negative cycle & U.S. starts getting dry & it's blamed on AGW. Higher precip during +PDO & drier conditions during -PDO is completely normal. I think it's illogical to immediately begin putting the finger on C02 & really minimizing the impacts of the natural factors. That's all I'm saying.

FWIW, Rusty I appreciate your posts. I read the forums more than I post. I respect you as a poster & enjoy reading your posts although I may not always agree with them. I may be wrong to not agree but that's just where I'm at right now.

[CoastalWx]

How could it not be? Every weather event, large and small, is taking place in a warmer, more moist environment. Where conditions are otherwise conducive, the higher mixing ratio of water vapor will enhance rainfall rate where total column precipitable water is greater,

It's a cutoff low interacting with a high PWAT axis. That's simple meteorology and should not be spun into climate change.

[WeatherRusty]

It's a cutoff low interacting with a high PWAT axis. That's simple meteorology and should not be spun into climate change.

The first order cause of a given heavy precipitation event will always involve basic meteorological factors and principles. How often a conducive setup occurs is what is likely to be changing.

A changing climate is by nature a shifting of average conditions on all scales in time and space. That makes it a statistical construct rather than a singular entity which can impact a given storm, heat wave, cold snap or drought. Climate is not part of the physics which creates the weather, it is rather the average condition in which the physics of weather plays out.

[CoastalWx]

The first order cause of a given heavy precipitation event will always involve basic meteorological factors and principles. How often a conducive setup occurs is what is likely to be changing.

A changing climate is by nature a shifting of average conditions on all scales in time and space. That makes it a statistical construct rather than a singular entity which can impact a given storm, heat wave, cold snap or drought. Climate is not part of the physics which creates the weather, it is rather the average condition in which the physics of weather plays out.

You can't say a specific cutoff low is because of climate change. It's a cutoff low in September which happens..especially as we head into Fall and wavelengths start to shorten a bit. This was simply a cutoff low interacting with a high PWAT axis. 50 years ago, those heavy rain amounts west of DC probably would have gone noticed, but thanks to spotter network..we are catching mesoscale bands of rain and snow like we never have before.

[Vergent]

You can't say a specific cutoff low is because of climate change. It's a cutoff low in September which happens..especially as we head into Fall and wavelengths start to shorten a bit. This was simply a cutoff low interacting with a high PWAT axis. 50 years ago, those heavy rain amounts west of DC probably would have gone noticed, but thanks to spotter network..we are catching mesoscale bands of rain and snow like we never have before.

Climate change shifts the bell curves of the range of events that happen at a given location. Here in California, the forests in our mountains are being devastated by beetles that are killed by a harsh winter. We still get freezes and snow up there, but not the extended harsh conditions that would wipe out the beetle. Once every ten years would do it, but that end of the bell curve does not go down to low enough temperatures to do the job anymore.

There is a good explanation in a video Here.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/not-looking-good-for-corn.html

[CoastalWx]

Climate change shifts the bell curves of the range of events that happen at a given location. Here in California, the forests in our mountains are being devastated by beetles that are killed by a harsh winter. We still get freezes and snow up there, but not the extended harsh conditions that would wipe out the beetle. Once every ten years would do it, but that end of the bell curve does not go down to low enough temperatures to do the job anymore.

There is a good explanation in a video Here.

http://www.skeptical...d-for-corn.html

That's apples and oranges. This is meteorology. Cutoff lows happen. It's ludicrous to say heavy rain caused by a cutoff low is because of extra water vapor in the atmosphere, which has not even been proven. You can't have it both ways. It sounds like all weather now is caused by AGW. We can't have a snow storm, rainstorm, or extended dry spell without climate change and AGW shoved down our throats. Now, the lack or tornadoes is being blamed on climate change. So, which is it? You can't have it both ways. People who aren't meteorologists sometimes fail to see this.

[Jonger]

Go take a look at wundergrounds daily highs and lows list... I commented on how record lows and high are about 1:1. I recognize that the arctic is where thr majority if the warming is with the lack of ice absorbing solar.

[Vergent]

That's apples and oranges. This is meteorology. Cutoff lows happen. It's ludicrous to say heavy rain caused by a cutoff low is because of extra water vapor in the atmosphere, which has not even been proven. You can't have it both ways. It sounds like all weather now is caused by AGW. We can't have a snow storm, rainstorm, or extended dry spell without climate change and AGW shoved down our throats. Now, the lack or tornadoes is being blamed on climate change. So, which is it? You can't have it both ways. People who aren't meteorologists sometimes fail to see this.

What they are talking about is the frequency and range of extreme events. Thirty years ago Hansen gave this example D.C. had at that time on average one 95F day per year as an example he suggested back then that in 2010 D.C. might be averaging 10 95F days per year. This year there have been over 20 95F days. Now each of those days has meteorological explanation. But the explanation for the change in the statistics is the change in the climate.

[CoastalWx]

What they are talking about is the frequency and range of extreme events. Thirty years ago Hansen gave this example D.C. had at that time on average one 95F day per year as an example he suggested back then that in 2010 D.C. might be averaging 10 95F days per year. This year there have been over 20 95F days. Now each of those days has meteorological explanation. But the explanation for the change in the statistics is the change in the climate.

That's a poor example and wrong. DC averaged more than 1 95 degree day. Again, I don't see how we can relate this DIRECTLY to climate change. We simply cannot statistically prove this to be related to climate change. Doing so, would be nothing more than bush league scare tactics. I guess the 30s and 40s had to be climate change as well when most pf this country roasted even more than it did now.Our climate system is just beginning to be understood and we have a long way to go. It doesn't change the fact that the original study posted seems like nothing more than a bunch of high school hippies posting about climate change.

[skierinvermont]

That's apples and oranges. This is meteorology. Cutoff lows happen. It's ludicrous to say heavy rain caused by a cutoff low is because of extra water vapor in the atmosphere, which has not even been proven. You can't have it both ways. It sounds like all weather now is caused by AGW. We can't have a snow storm, rainstorm, or extended dry spell without climate change and AGW shoved down our throats. Now, the lack or tornadoes is being blamed on climate change. So, which is it? You can't have it both ways. People who aren't meteorologists sometimes fail to see this.

Not all weather is 100% caused by AGW. Nobody is saying that. But all weather is influenced by AGW. The atmosphere is completely different than what it would be without AGW. It is warmer. It is more moist. That necessarily changes atmospheric patterns and dynamics.

In other cases we may be able to make even stronger claims. For example, the frequency of 3 standard deviation heatwaves has increased from .2% to 10% because of AGW. That means that 98% of the 3 standard deviation heatwaves in the past decade would not have happened without AGW. Thus when speaking of a particular 3 standard deviation heatwave event we can can say with 98% confidence that it would not have happened without AGW.

[CoastalWx]

Not all weather is 100% caused by AGW. Nobody is saying that. But all weather is influenced by AGW. The atmosphere is completely different than what it would be without AGW. It is warmer. It is more moist. That necessarily changes atmospheric patterns and dynamics.

In other cases we may be able to make even stronger claims. For example, the frequency of 3 standard deviation heatwaves has increased from .2% to 10% because of AGW. That means that 98% of the 3 standard deviation heatwaves in the past decade would not have happened without AGW. Thus when speaking of a particular 3 standard deviation heatwave event we can can say with 98% confidence that it would not have happened without AGW.

But even that statement is buying right into the alarmists. We can't we have heavy rain, drought, heavy snow without climate change getting involved? Why can't the weather simply be a product of its own doing? Is the drought part of climate change, or is it simply the result of a very dry winter over the CONUS...thanks to massive INDO convection that helped lock in an AK vortex and blowtorch the country? How can we be so sure AGW/climate change is directly causing these things? How can we simply say that with just an assumption? These are the questions we also need to think about.

But you can't pin point this specific example like what the article did and say hey, this is the result of AGW. It's irresponsible and flat all wrong. We've had mesoscale heavy precip events since the dawn of time and more and more local events will be reported with increased spotter network. I understand fully what the increase in temp means. Where were these arguments in the 50s and 60s when we had massive blocking and precip episodes? Back then we really had more 1st order stations reporting and likely missed many localized precip events...either rain or snow. Besides with the recent lack of increase in global temps over the last 10 years or so, the argument put forth isn't as strong as it implies. We do not have the best sample size and it is frightening to imply that specific events are AGW related. I'm totally for what the argument tries to imply if we continue to see temps rising, but you can't cherry pick things like it did. I, too, want to get to the bottom of everything, but it's important to dig through the stuff spewed forth fro both sides.

[donsutherland1]

How can we be so sure AGW/climate change is directly causing these things?

Attribution science is still in its relative infancy. With respect to temperature extremes, a rising mean temperature, if combined with no change in natural variability (standard deviation), would lead to an increased statistical probability of extreme heat. Some of the literature suggests that the standard deviation would also increase somewhat, which would further amplify the statistical probability of extreme heat events.

In a simplified essay concerning the "climate dice," Dr. James Hansen, et al., wrote the following to explain the growing frequency of extremely hot summers (+3σ or greater departure from the 1951-80 base period):

An important change is the emergence of a subset of the hot category, extremely hot outliers, defined as anomalies exceeding +3σ. The frequency of these extreme anomalies is about 0.13% in the normal distribution, and thus in a typical summer in the base period only 0.1-0.2% of the globe is covered by such hot extremes. However, we show that during the past several years the global land area covered by summer temperature anomalies exceeding +3σ has averaged about 10%, an increase by more than an order of magnitude compared to the base period...

The question of whether these extreme hot anomalies are a result of global warming is often answered in the negative, with an alternative interpretation based on meteorological patterns. For example, an unusual atmospheric "blocking" situation resulted in a long-lived high pressure anomaly in the Moscow region in 2010, and a strong La Niña in 2011 may have contributed to the heat and drought situation in the southern United States and Mexico. However, such meteorological patterns are not new and thus as an "explanation" fail to account for the huge increase in the area covered by extreme positive temperature anomalies. Specific meteorological patterns help explain where the high pressure regions that favor high temperature and drought conditions occur in a given summer, but the unusually great temperature extremities and the large area covered by these hot anomalies is a consequence of global warming, which is causing the bell curve to shift to the right.

In short, the synoptic patterns and oceanic cycles are continuing to play out, but in the context of a warming global climate. According to climate science, anthropogenic forcings offer the best available explanation for that long-term warming. Hence, even as, for example, the current drought is largely a product of the shift in the PDO coupled with the AMO based on the scientific literature on U.S. droughts, the temperature extremes resulting from the drought are rivaling those of the Dust Bowl droughts, which were more extreme and more expansive than the current one. All things being equal, similar synoptic patterns and oceanic cycles are now producing somewhat greater warmth and somewhat lesser cold than they had in the past. Even as science has not advanced to the stage where one can definitively say that a given outbreak of heat was the direct result of AGW, one can state that on account of AGW, the outcome(s) are warmer than they would otherwise be. The "Summer in March" event and the extreme heat of Summer 2012 would have been less likely to occur in the absence of AGW.

[ben4vols]

I'm still waiting on the strong El Nino that Jimmy Hansen said was probable last summer. Poor Jimmy, he is just dying to get another El Nino.

Based on subsurface ocean temperatures, the way these have progressed the past several months, and comparisons with development of prior El Ninos, we believe that the system is moving toward a strong El Nino starting this summer. It’s not a sure bet, but it is probable.

[Vergent]

I'm still waiting on the strong El Nino that Jimmy Hansen said was probable last summer. Poor Jimmy, he is just dying to get another El Nino.

It’s not a sure bet

I take it English is not your native language.

[ben4vols]

[/font][/size]

I take it English is not your native language.

Nice try. He said it was probable and covered his backside with the other. You do know what probable means dont you?

[skierinvermont]

But even that statement is buying right into the alarmists. We can't we have heavy rain, drought, heavy snow without climate change getting involved? Why can't the weather simply be a product of its own doing? Is the drought part of climate change, or is it simply the result of a very dry winter over the CONUS...thanks to massive INDO convection that helped lock in an AK vortex and blowtorch the country? How can we be so sure AGW/climate change is directly causing these things? How can we simply say that with just an assumption? These are the questions we also need to think about.

But you can't pin point this specific example like what the article did and say hey, this is the result of AGW. It's irresponsible and flat all wrong. We've had mesoscale heavy precip events since the dawn of time and more and more local events will be reported with increased spotter network. I understand fully what the increase in temp means. Where were these arguments in the 50s and 60s when we had massive blocking and precip episodes? Back then we really had more 1st order stations reporting and likely missed many localized precip events...either rain or snow. Besides with the recent lack of increase in global temps over the last 10 years or so, the argument put forth isn't as strong as it implies. We do not have the best sample size and it is frightening to imply that specific events are AGW related. I'm totally for what the argument tries to imply if we continue to see temps rising, but you can't cherry pick things like it did. I, too, want to get to the bottom of everything, but it's important to dig through the stuff spewed forth fro both sides.

In addition to Don's solid post, I'd like to say a few things.

It's not about 'buying right into the alarmists.' Do you have any idea how partisan that sounds? It's just a fact. Rising water vapor and temperature change the atmospheric dynamics behind weather. It's physics. AGW has influenced all aspects of weather. Temperatures are warmer than they would be otherwise. Jet streams are farther north. Etc. etc. It doesn't mean every weather event is worse or specifically caused by AGW. Just that it is different. It doesn't matter if this statement confuses casual observers.. it is just a fact. Is it an especially profound fact? Not really.. but it's not trivial either.

The arguments you raise in your second paragraph are invalid.

First, the study in the original post goes back to 1948, and it does not find more extreme rain events in the 50s and 60s.

Second, it measures the increase in extreme weather events per station so your argument that more stations increased the number of extreme events is invalid. In fact, it uses the same set of stations throughout. And there is a fairly linear, statistically significant increasing trend in extreme rain events since 1948. Why is it so difficult for you to believe this? All of the research says that a warmer world will experience more downpours. We have warmed significantly and water vapor in the atmosphere has risen over 4%.

Third, global temperatures have been rising over the last 10 years, albeit at a slower rate than in the previous decade. Of course it depends on selection of start and end point, but if you select an ENSO-neutral period (no net trend in ENSO) there is warming on both UAH and GISS near .1C/decade.

[CoastalWx]

Attribution science is still in its relative infancy. With respect to temperature extremes, a rising mean temperature, if combined with no change in natural variability (standard deviation), would lead to an increased statistical probability of extreme heat. Some of the literature suggests that the standard deviation would also increase somewhat, which would further amplify the statistical probability of extreme heat events.

In a simplified essay concerning the "climate dice," Dr. James Hansen, et al., wrote the following to explain the growing frequency of extremely hot summers (+3σ or greater departure from the 1951-80 base period):

An important change is the emergence of a subset of the hot category, extremely hot outliers, defined as anomalies exceeding +3σ. The frequency of these extreme anomalies is about 0.13% in the normal distribution, and thus in a typical summer in the base period only 0.1-0.2% of the globe is covered by such hot extremes. However, we show that during the past several years the global land area covered by summer temperature anomalies exceeding +3σ has averaged about 10%, an increase by more than an order of magnitude compared to the base period...

The question of whether these extreme hot anomalies are a result of global warming is often answered in the negative, with an alternative interpretation based on meteorological patterns. For example, an unusual atmospheric "blocking" situation resulted in a long-lived high pressure anomaly in the Moscow region in 2010, and a strong La Niña in 2011 may have contributed to the heat and drought situation in the southern United States and Mexico. However, such meteorological patterns are not new and thus as an "explanation" fail to account for the huge increase in the area covered by extreme positive temperature anomalies. Specific meteorological patterns help explain where the high pressure regions that favor high temperature and drought conditions occur in a given summer, but the unusually great temperature extremities and the large area covered by these hot anomalies is a consequence of global warming, which is causing the bell curve to shift to the right.

In short, the synoptic patterns and oceanic cycles are continuing to play out, but in the context of a warming global climate. According to climate science, anthropogenic forcings offer the best available explanation for that long-term warming. Hence, even as, for example, the current drought is largely a product of the shift in the PDO coupled with the AMO based on the scientific literature on U.S. droughts, the temperature extremes resulting from the drought are rivaling those of the Dust Bowl droughts, which were more extreme and more expansive than the current one. All things being equal, similar synoptic patterns and oceanic cycles are now producing somewhat greater warmth and somewhat lesser cold than they had in the past. Even as science has not advanced to the stage where one can definitively say that a given outbreak of heat was the direct result of AGW, one can state that on account of AGW, the outcome(s) are warmer than they would otherwise be. The "Summer in March" event and the extreme heat of Summer 2012 would have been less likely to occur in the absence of AGW.

In addition to Don's solid post, I'd like to say a few things.

It's not about 'buying right into the alarmists.' Do you have any idea how partisan that sounds? It's just a fact. Rising water vapor and temperature change the atmospheric dynamics behind weather. It's physics. AGW has influenced all aspects of weather. Temperatures are warmer than they would be otherwise. Jet streams are farther north. Etc. etc. It doesn't mean every weather event is worse or specifically caused by AGW. Just that it is different. It doesn't matter if this statement confuses casual observers.. it is just a fact. Is it an especially profound fact? Not really.. but it's not trivial either.

The arguments you raise in your second paragraph are invalid.

First, the study in the original post goes back to 1948, and it does not find more extreme rain events in the 50s and 60s.

Second, it measures the increase in extreme weather events per station so your argument that more stations increased the number of extreme events is invalid. In fact, it uses the same set of stations throughout. And there is a fairly linear, statistically significant increasing trend in extreme rain events since 1948. Why is it so difficult for you to believe this? All of the research says that a warmer world will experience more downpours. We have warmed significantly and water vapor in the atmosphere has risen over 4%.

Third, global temperatures have been rising over the last 10 years, albeit at a slower rate than in the previous decade. Of course it depends on selection of start and end point, but if you select an ENSO-neutral period (no net trend in ENSO) there is warming on both UAH and GISS near .1C/decade.

I'm not one side or the other, but this article is clearly one sided with an intent and you're not acknowledging this. I simply don't see how they can confidently blame AGW induced climate change of 60 years of data. Their example of using a tropical depression which can actually put forth more rain than a stronger tropical cyclone is simply false. Why would they include that, other than to drive home an agenda. How do we know this is AGW? We don't know if this is partly to do with natural variability, or a combo of both. They go as far as to say this...

"These examples of extreme rainfall may

seem like isolated incidents, but they are

part of a larger story connected to global

warming. Scientists have concluded that

“global warming is unequivocal and primarily

human-induced,”

I don't even know what to saw about this. How can they be so confident in these individual events directly tied to AGW.

They sound like they have the answers to everything in this article and it's simply not that easy. That's my point. I see you even defending Will in the other threads and I'm surprised you are for the article. As always, myself and other mets do believe the planet has warmed and you have to be crazy not to think so. The question on our end is how much and why.

[donsutherland1]

I simply don't see how they can confidently blame AGW induced climate change of 60 years of data. Their example of using a tropical depression which can actually put forth more rain than a stronger tropical cyclone is simply false.

I believe confidence runs from higher to lower when it comes to high temperature extremes/heat, atmospheric temperature changes, precipitation extremes/drought, and then tropical cyclones. Confidence regarding temperature extremes/heat is probably the highest. Confidence concerning tropical cyclones is probably lowest. One probably can argue that the recent run of extreme heat in the U.S. is, in part, on account of climate change. That statistical framework is strong enough to demonstrating that shifting mean temperatures + given standard deviations produce a rising probability of heat extremes. One lacks sufficient evidence to argue that Hurricane X had Y impact or reached Z strength, in part, due to climate change.

[CoastalWx]

I believe confidence runs from higher to lower when it comes to high temperature extremes/heat, atmospheric temperature changes, precipitation extremes/drought, and then tropical cyclones. Confidence regarding temperature extremes/heat is probably the highest. Confidence concerning tropical cyclones is probably lowest. One probably can argue that the recent run of extreme heat in the U.S. is, in part, on account of climate change. That statistical framework is strong enough to demonstrating that shifting mean temperatures + given standard deviations produce a rising probability of heat extremes. One lacks sufficient evidence to argue that Hurricane X had Y impact or reached Z strength, in part, due to climate change.

And let me just say that I'm not arguing that we caused 0% increase in this study. Of course a warmer climate can allow for more water vapor eventually. We probably have some say in that. The problem I have is the shear confidence they display saying that the increase we see is all because of AGW. I'm on the side that mother nature and her natural cycles likely had much more to do with it then the article suggests. Many of our large precip events are caused by an anomalous blocking pattern. If you want to argue blocking is because of climate change..that is another argument, but this isn't what the article is stating. A stalled front that drops heavy rain simply can't be directly tied to AGW. We simply do not have the ability to determine that. Also, what about the rest of the globe? Is everyone seeing this? What about decadal cycles? That is going to have a say in precip amounts and 60 years isn't going to cover 2 back to back cycles of any oscillation so that we can try to even make out a trend. You have to think about all these things. This is OT, but even something like tropical ACE is having a say in climate by some mets and scientists. You have very low tropical ACE..something that is supposed to take oceanic heat and transport it north. Well all that heat has to go somewhere and it may be contributing to the mid latitude heat waves we've been having across the world. There are just so many questions we need answered. Pretty pics of cars submersed and a graph that tries to show increased precip that may be skewed by stations isn't quite enough. That's great the US has seen many warm years since 2000, but that's not nearly as extreme across the globe.