ORH_wxman Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 That's consistent with what you would expect from a warmer climate and more moisture in the atmosphere. Yes it is. However, the arcticle cites a lot of examples that are really irrelevant to their point. They also lost me when they decided to dive into politics at the end and when they started putting maps out on how most of the CONUS would warm 2-2.5C (4F) by mid-century. It would have come across as a lot more scientifically objective if they stayed out of the whole diatribe about emmissions, policy, and the extremely unlikely temperature scenario painted out on their maps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Yes it is. However, the arcticle cites a lot of examples that are really irrelevant to their point. They also lost me when they decided to dive into politics at the end and when they started putting maps out on how most of the CONUS would warm 2-2.5C (4F) by mid-century. It would have come across as a lot more scientifically objective if they stayed out of the whole diatribe about emmissions, policy, and the extremely unlikely temperature scenario painted out on their maps. That summed up the issues I had with that article. It also probably should be included to actually cover the globe, instead of the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewave Posted August 29, 2012 Author Share Posted August 29, 2012 Yes it is. However, the arcticle cites a lot of examples that are really irrelevant to their point. They also lost me when they decided to dive into politics at the end and when they started putting maps out on how most of the CONUS would warm 2-2.5C (4F) by mid-century. It would have come across as a lot more scientifically objective if they stayed out of the whole diatribe about emmissions, policy, and the extremely unlikely temperature scenario painted out on their maps. It's based on raw data from the NCDC. I believe that I read that the NCDC will have another study out later this year, but I am not sure. I adds to other studies that I linked earlier in this thread based of NCDC data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Here is the temperature tend between the first 20 years of their study and the final 20 years of their study...why they chose to show a temperature scenario that is extremely unlikely to occur makes you wonder about their main motive in the study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 The study was about precipitation in general and did not focus on hurricanes. There are papers that deal with the potential change hurricane precipitation under climate change, but it was outside the scope of this study. You are missing an important point on the increase in extremes of precipitation form the original study that I posted. It's not only the amounts that go up, but also there is an increase in the frequency of large events. The change in the pattern is a significant one. I believe there were two separate points, both the increase in frequency (overall for the U.S. not as significant as you seem to think) AND the generalized increase in amounts. If we know how much more precipitation is occurring in general due to AGW, why can't we apply it to a hurricane? Oh wait...would that be applying climate to a specific weather event? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastalWx Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 There are other studies which are linked earlier in this thread and others which deal with global precipitation extremes. The mandate of this study was just the USA. Conducting a study like that in the same time period with other stages is probably more telling than an article about a decade of extremes. A dewpoint increase of 71 to 73 isn't going to turn a regular tstm into an all out monsoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Conducting a study like that in the same time period with other stages is probably more telling than an article about a decade of extremes. A dewpoint increase of 71 to 73 isn't going to turn a regular tstm into an all out monsoon. It sure matters if you want funding for that next study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Tell that to someone who has to pay for flood insurance or property damage. The GFDL has a list of studies and one that I could see that deals with hurricane rainfall in particular. This study was not hurricane specific but more rainfall is expected from hurricanes under a warming climate also. Tell them what? That the flooding may or may not have been a little bit worse because of AGW? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Conducting a study like that in the same time period with other stages is probably more telling than an article about a decade of extremes. A dewpoint increase of 71 to 73 isn't going to turn a regular tstm into an all out monsoon. Exactly. It's very hard to qualify, and the results of this study could easily be at least partially reflective of multi-decadal trends associated with natural climate fluctuations such as the PDO/AMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Significant is not little. That's one region of the country. Look at the Pacific side, not nearly the same trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 That's exactly what the study says. It's not an even process. See the NOAA video and AMS statement that I linked earlier today. Right. So using the most extreme region of the country to make a point seems a bit misleading. Kind of like when you posted Phoenix's graph to illustrate a point about the Southwest. Just sayin... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewave Posted August 29, 2012 Author Share Posted August 29, 2012 Right. So using the most extreme region of the country to make a point seems a bit misleading. Kind of like when you posted Phoenix's graph to illustrate a point about the Southwest. Just sayin... I was posting that in response to you downplaying the significance of the of extreme precipitation events. Other regions have significant rises also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Significant is not little. The water North of the Gulf Stream has been running warm for a while now. In terms of Ocean SST's this is pretty consistantly high end. Obviously this will help add to heavy rain events when system draw from this region. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 The water North of the Gulf Stream has been running warm for a while now. In terms of Ocean SST's this is pretty consistantly high end. Obviously this will help add to heavy rain events when system draw from this region. And that is at least partly a function of the +AMO. -PDO phase has led to predominantly colder waters in the GOA and along the West Coast, and is correlated with more precipitation in the Northwest part of the country. Interestingly, the Gulf of Mexico hasn't been all that warm lately (in terms of anomalies), yet Isaac is still generating incredible amounts of precip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 And that is at least partly a function of the +AMO. -PDO phase has led to predominantly colder waters in the GOA and along the West Coast, and is correlated with more precipitation in the Northwest part of the country. Interestingly, the Gulf of Mexico hasn't been all that warm lately (in terms of anomalies), yet Isaac is still generating incredible amounts of precip. The max differnce between an extremely positive AMO and an extremely negative AMO is 1.0C, the average differnce is 0.4C. The PDO's most extreme range is 5.0C. The AMO's impact directly based on water overturning isn't even 100% of that 1.0/0.4C change. How much more over-stated can the AMO be? Maybe the colder current that is supposed to send colder waters South isn't so cold with arctic amplification taking place. Upper panel: AMO index: the ten-year running mean of detrended Atlantic sea surface temperature anomaly (SSTA, °C) north of the equator. Lower panel: Correlation of the AMO index with gridded SSTA over the world ocean (all seasons). The thick contour is zero and thin contours denote the 95% significance level. Last winter when the AMO was slightly negative the same thing was taking place. The AO going from positive to negative seems to have some influence but regardless it stays very warm. Well stays torching. display plot oiv2.ctl ssta 1 03jan1990 to 15aug2012 40N to 55N, 70W to 50W. Looks like the warming trends started before the AMO went positive. Same parameters from 1981-1989. display plot oiv2_80s.ctl ssta 1 01nov1981 to 31dec1989 Same parameters using monthly: display plot monoiv2.ctl ssta 1 nov1981 to jul2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 The max differnce between an extremely positive AMO and an extremely negative AMO is 1.0C, the average differnce is 0.4C. The PDO's most extreme range is 5.0C. The AMO's impact directly based on water overturning isn't even 100% of that 1.0/0.4C change. How much more over-stated can the AMO be? Maybe the colder current that is supposed to send colder waters South isn't so cold with arctic amplification taking place. Last winter when the AMO was slightly negative the same thing was taking place. The AO going from positive to negative seems to have some influence but regardless it stays very warm. Well stays torching. display plot oiv2.ctl ssta 1 03jan1990 to 15aug2012 40N to 55N, 70W to 50W. Looks like the warming trends started before the AMO went positive. Same parameters from 1981-1989. display plot oiv2_80s.ctl ssta 1 01nov1981 to 31dec1989 Same parameters using monthly: display plot monoiv2.ctl ssta 1 nov1981 to jul2012 You really seemed to miss tacoman's point...the AMO is correlated with warmer waters in the Atlantic and the PDO with warmer waters in the N PAC...this could definitely be tied to increased rainfall in some areas. You seem to be using this thread to go on another long post about the AMO and the arctic. We've already been through what the AMO is believed to be in the arctic a couple weeks ago in the arctic thread when we linked some literature on the subject. The underlying warming trend outside of the decadal ocean cycles would support higher rainfall totals as well, but its dangerous to make assumptions using a 60 year sample since that is really only one cycle of most of these oscillations. Unfortunately our data is sparse further back than 1948 and a lot of inhomogeneity exists as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 I wasn't talking about the Arctic I was talking about the waters North of the Gulf Stream from NY and Boston to Nova Scotia. you are either trying to ignore it or didn't even read my post. As far the arctic, the ice is almost gone. 3000km3 in about a week will be the bottom point. Keep using the "literature" to feed what you want to believe VS reality and you will continue being wrong and underestimating what is happening. If you have any thoughts on why the ocean from NY/Bos to Nova Scotia is torching conistently and only getting hotter going back before the AMO went positive that would be great. the sst's are running 2-5C warmer than normal, using the AMO in any capacity to explain it makes no sense and seems pretty lazy and convienent to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 I wasn't talking about the Arctic I was talking about the waters North of the Gulf Stream from NY and Boston to Nova Scotia. you are either trying to ignore it or didn't even read my post. As far the arctic, the ice is almost gone. 3000km3 in about a week will be the bottom point. Keep using the "literature" to feed what you want to believe VS reality and you will continue being wrong and underestimating what is happening. If you have any thoughts on why the ocean from NY/Bos to Nova Scotia is torching conistently and only getting hotter going back before the AMO went positive that would be great. the sst's are running 2-5C warmer than normal, using the AMO in any capacity to explain it makes no sense and seems pretty lazy and convienent to me. Somebody is feeling their oats at the end of melt season. Freeze up can't get here soon enough so the climate clowns can go back into hibernation till next spring. The ice is almost gone. Funny stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 I wasn't talking about the Arctic I was talking about the waters North of the Gulf Stream from NY and Boston to Nova Scotia. you are either trying to ignore it or didn't even read my post. As far the arctic, the ice is almost gone. 3000km3 in about a week will be the bottom point. Keep using the "literature" to feed what you want to believe VS reality and you will continue being wrong and underestimating what is happening. If you have any thoughts on why the ocean from NY/Bos to Nova Scotia is torching conistently and only getting hotter going back before the AMO went positive that would be great. the sst's are running 2-5C warmer than normal, using the AMO in any capacity to explain it makes no sense and seems pretty lazy and convienent to me. Sounds like you are retracting your earlier thoughts on the AMO papers I linked you...you actually started admitting they do affect SSTs in the North Atlantic, but I guess you changed your mind. Thats OK though. As for your quote "before the AMO went positive"...I'm not sure what you are trying to imply. That the waters only magically start getting warmer when the AMO goes positive? Before it goes positive, it becomes less negative which means we are coming up from the bottom. Since you seem to be the expert here, I will defer to your knowledge on this question....if the AMO has no impact on our SSTs in the North Atlantic, then why was the 1930-1960 period even warmer than the current 1995-present phase along the east coast and off Nova Scotia? And why did we cool rapidly in the North Atlantic between the 1950s and the early 1980s? Since you want to focus on the waters north of the gulf stream from NY to Boston to Nova Scotia...that is where this post is focusing. We'll make sure we compare the most recent period too to the peak back then I'm interested in why it was so warm in those areas during the last AMO+ phase if the AMO doesn't really matter. What caused it to be so warm then that is different from now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Great post, Will. It will be interesting to see how Friv handles this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 Great post, Will. It will be interesting to see how Friv handles this one. Perhaps he didn't see it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.