El Nino ?

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

Looks like it's starting to make front page news again....I haven't even seen the latest images yet.

 

Their calling for a 50% chance of an El Nino this year. 

[WXheights]

Humongous warming layer in eastern ENSO regions of the Pacific Ocean - perhaps on its way for another 1998 event or worse when coupled by incredible Ocean Heat Content.

 

http://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/kelvin-wave-early-may.gif

 

The kelvin wave heads toward surface and as just recently we are already technically in a weak El Nino state if we stay in this position more than a couple month which sure looks likely. El Nino's Kelvin Wave this early are now above expectations of just a couple months ago.

 

It usually takes until Fall or even Winter for a typical El Nino event to emerge. When El Nino comes early — by late spring or summer — risks increase that the event will be far stronger than normal. In general, such events are thought to be preceded by very strong Kelvin waves like the one we’ve witnessed since January.

 

Many Ocean researchers such as Dr Wenju Cai, a climate expert at Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, now consider the ocean to be primed for such a strong El Nino event.

Dr. Cai explains:

“I think this event has lots of characteristics with a strong El Nino. A strong El Nino appears early and we have seen this event over the last couple of months, which is unusual; the wind that has caused the warming is quite large and there is what we call the pre-conditioned effects, where you must have a lot of heat already in the system to have a big El Nino event.”

Rising Potential for Very Bad Weather

With the world’s weather already pushed to extreme states by human warming, the emergence of a strong El Nino would likely have increasingly severe consequences. Weather events at both the flood and drought extreme would be further amplified as a portion of hottest ever Pacific Ocean heat content transferred back to the atmosphere. This transfer would push a hydrological cycle already amped by more than 6% due to human-caused warming to a greater extreme. It would also likely result in new global high temperature records worldwide as a Pacific Ocean that had sucked up so much of excess human warming during the past decade and a half again becomes a major heat source.

[frosty]

Humongous warming layer in eastern ENSO regions of the Pacific Ocean - perhaps on its way for another 1998 event or worse when coupled by incredible Ocean Heat Content.

 

http://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/kelvin-wave-early-may.gif

Incredible Ocean heat content LOL.

Who are you trying to kid.

[Jonger]

The extreme weather card doesn't play here. We all agree the arctic ice is retreating and the oceans are gaining heat, but the extreme weather play doesn't work with the informed.

[WXheights]

Incredible Ocean heat content LOL.

Who are you trying to kid.

whats incredible is why I even have to do this?

[WXheights]

The extreme weather card doesn't play here. We all agree the arctic ice is retreating and the oceans are gaining heat, but the extreme weather play doesn't work with the informed.

Jonger - denying the extreme weather in 97-98 associated with El Nino - Really? I mean really??  Right now there's probably somebody trying to sell their Mcmansion just off Pacific Coast Hiway in the Malibu region - just for starters. 

 

Not sure who you are referring to - frequency and quality of extreme weather has been and is on the increase. I'd start by talking to you local utility lineman.

[ORH_wxman]

Jonger - denying the extreme weather in 97-98 associated with El Nino - Really? I mean really??  Right now there's probably somebody trying to sell their Mcmansion just off Pacific Coast Hiway in the Malibu region - just for starters. 

 

Not sure who you are referring to - frequency and quality of extreme weather has been and is on the increase. I'd start by talking to you local utility lineman.

 

 

It depends on what you are referring to. Globally, the only attribution of extreme weather has been heat waves. We've seen a decrease in severe cold waves.

 

In the eastern US closer to home, there has been an increase in heavy precipitation events that can be tied back to AGW in climate models. 

 

 

Pretty much all other claims of increases in extreme weather are either anecdotel, forecasts based on GCMs (rather than observations), or debated in the peer review literature.

[Jonger]

Jonger - denying the extreme weather in 97-98 associated with El Nino - Really? I mean really??  Right now there's probably somebody trying to sell their Mcmansion just off Pacific Coast Hiway in the Malibu region - just for starters. 

 

Not sure who you are referring to - frequency and quality of extreme weather has been and is on the increase. I'd start by talking to you local utility lineman.

 

Anecdotal. The whole "Crazy Weather" meme is just meant to get the dialog rolling with the uninformed public. 

[WXheights]

It depends on what you are referring to. Globally, the only attribution of extreme weather has been heat waves. We've seen a decrease in severe cold waves.

 

In the eastern US closer to home, there has been an increase in heavy precipitation events that can be tied back to AGW in climate models. 

 

 

Pretty much all other claims of increases in extreme weather are either anecdotel, forecasts based on GCMs (rather than observations), or debated in the peer review literature.

OK -- I get it now - the new trick is to redefine extreme...to muddle extreme or to make extreme a new high threshold as to not cause what is seen by the average person as extreme. that's funny! I'd like to see that conversation in person with somebody who just lossed their house or barn that had been there for 150 years - now that's richly extreme.  Outside the weather community - loosing your power for a week is pretty "extreme"

 

Since you are talking hydro -- Yes lets talk hydro -  and extreme precip events cause flooding which can be pretty extreme for life and property.  6-8% increase in Pwats = higher% of larger rain drops i.e run-off cause flows to be "extreme", Extreme run-off plus snow melt also more extreme causes extreme lake levels 103.2 for example Lake Champlain all time instrumental record "extreme" which for a month and half caused more extreme erosion due wave action.

 

You or anyone else would be "selfishly foolish"  to deny that frequency and quality extreme are trending up

 

Is that the latest attempt - to deny extreme weather by some change of definition?  So I say again -- go ask your Utility if the weather is extreme -- I'd personally love to hear back about that?

[WXheights]

Anecdotal. The whole "Crazy Weather" meme is just meant to get the dialog rolling with the uninformed public. 

Obviously weather is the Means and Extremes. That said crazy weather is reality as there is more extreme to the weather and yes you can pin it to variations of AGW. It's very noticeable actually in northern New England and adjacent Canada.

 

I think you know this - Higher temperatures hold more moisture period, Ocean Heat Content through the roof. so yeah go ahead and stall frontal wave out of the sub-tropics and see what you get?. Pretty Extreme Francis-Vavrus12.

 

Hell, more Cape Pwats stronger updrafts -- larger hail suspended -- within those updrafts as another example. I'm betting in recent years the recent spate super large hail stones owe to more water vapor, higher frequency of juiced dew points, maybe ad dust nuclei from drought stricken areas and golly gee whiz what just might be changing this? and boom I can put the logic train together and I do not need a study to tell me so. I find this reactionary feedback loop oppressive with some. I would encourage thinking out of the box through common logic.

[ORH_wxman]

OK -- I get it now - the new trick is to redefine extreme...to muddle extreme or to make extreme a new high threshold as to not cause what is seen by the average person as extreme. that's funny! I'd like to see that conversation in person with somebody who just lossed their house or barn that had been there for 150 years - now that's richly extreme.  Outside the weather community - loosing your power for a week is pretty "extreme"

 

Since you are talking hydro -- Yes lets talk hydro -  and extreme precip events cause flooding which can be pretty extreme for life and property.  6-8% increase in Pwats = higher% of larger rain drops i.e run-off cause flows to be "extreme", Extreme run-off plus snow melt also more extreme causes extreme lake levels 103.2 for example Lake Champlain all time instrumental record "extreme" which for a month and half caused more extreme erosion due wave action.

 

You or anyone else would be "selfishly foolish"  to deny that frequency and quality extreme are trending up

 

Is that the latest attempt - to deny extreme weather by some change of definition?  So I say again -- go ask your Utility if the weather is extreme -- I'd personally love to hear back about that?

 

 

It seems you want to just slap a simple broadbrush of "extreme weather is increasing" and be done with it. Well that's fine...but finding out what actually is/isn't attributable to AGW is an interest to many. Someone losing a house that is 150 years old is not evidence of increasing extreme weather due to AGW...as tragic as that specific case is.

 

 

And who is "redefining" extreme? I simply pointed out that very few types of extreme weather are actually attributable to AGW in the peer reviewed literature. That is a fact, not an opinion.

 

 

Here's some conclusions of the IPCC report on extreme weather:

 

First on increase in losses due to weather:

 

“Most studies of long-term disaster loss records attribute these increases in losses to increasing exposure of people and assets in at-risk areas (Miller et al., 2008; Bouwer, 2011), and to underlying societal trends – demographic, economic, political, and social – that shape vulnerability to impacts (Pielke Jr. et al., 2005; Bouwer et al., 2007). Some authors suggest that a (natural or anthropogenic) climate change signal can be found in the records of disaster losses (e.g., Mills, 2005; Höppe and Grimm, 2009), but their work is in the nature of reviews and commentary rather than empirical research.” (SREX 4.5.3.3)

 

 

“There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change (Choi and Fisher, 2003; Crompton and McAneney, 2008; Miller et al., 2008; Neumayer and Barthel, 2011).”

 

“The absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados (Boruff et al., 2003; Pielke Jr. et al., 2003, 2008; Raghavan and Rajesh, 2003; Miller et al 2008; Schmidt et al., 2009; Zhang et al., 2009; see also Box 4-2)."

 

"Most studies related increases found in normalized hurricane losses in the United States since the 1970s (Miller et al., 2008; Schmidt et al., 2009; Nordhaus, 2010) to the natural variability observed since that time (Miller et al., 2008; Pielke Jr. et al., 2008). Bouwer and Botzen (2011) demonstrated that other normalized records of total economic and insured losses for the same series of hurricanes exhibit no significant trends in losses since 1900."

 

 

 

• “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”

• “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”

 

 

Edit: apologies for not including the links earlier:

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/

[WXheights]

 

It seems you want to just slap a simple broadbrush of "extreme weather is increasing" and be done with it. Well that fine...but finding out what actually is/isn't attributable to AGW is an interest to many. Someone losing a house that is 150 years old is not evidence of increasing extreme weather due to AGW...as tragic as that specific case is.

 

So, apparently you need a study or else to tell you, you have no capability to actually  "observe for yourself". You can not use your meteorological logic skills in seeing any of those parameters connected with AGW.  Well, others can and do. You want to CHERRY PICK EXTREME.

 

An example "Only in the NE US there's an increase in heavy precip events"?! But nowhere else because there's no study? not done yet? therefore can't be...that is cleverly dismissive but most people with sensory perception know better. 

 

Losing your house to any meteorological parameter is by the very definition extreme especially after having been through a century or more of harsh weather yet you want to dance. 

 

As Kevin Trenberth said every storm - every weather system, every weather parameter period today has some percentage of extra CO2 and verifiable a different atmospheric chemistry affecting our weather. I 'd like to see your gymnastics trying to disprove this. This is not up for debate.

 

Are you one of those who broadbrush anyone who points out the extreme dangers of AGW as a looney tune - Isn't this your mission? I bet your are still pretty sore you had to admit AGW is real,. I understand, so now you want to downplay its affects.

 

[ORH_wxman]

Your response contains anecdotal references to extreme event attribution rather than scientific evidence and then you end it with an ad hominem attack.

 

I was hoping for better discussion than that.

[Jonger]

Obviously weather is the Means and Extremes. That said crazy weather is reality as there is more extreme to the weather and yes you can pin it to variations of AGW. It's very noticeable actually in northern New England and adjacent Canada.

 

I think you know this - Higher temperatures hold more moisture period, Ocean Heat Content through the roof. so yeah go ahead and stall frontal wave out of the sub-tropics and see what you get?. Pretty Extreme Francis-Vavrus12.

 

Hell, more Cape Pwats stronger updrafts -- larger hail suspended -- within those updrafts as another example. I'm betting in recent years the recent spate super large hail stones owe to more water vapor, higher frequency of juiced dew points, maybe ad dust nuclei from drought stricken areas and golly gee whiz what just might be changing this? and boom I can put the logic train together and I do not need a study to tell me so. I find this reactionary feedback loop oppressive with some. I would encourage thinking out of the box through common logic.

 

Crazy weather sounds about as unscientific a saying possible. I have a tornado warning RIGHT NOW. 

 

Is that crazy weather? I would say its extreme, but its average to see at least 1 warning a year here. 

 

So whats your opinion.

 

4:20pm I have a tornado warning in 48843 zip code. 

 

Should I go to the local store and make small talk about climate change because of the tornado warning we had today?

[michsnowfreak]

Historically a strong el nino means mild and rather anemic winters here, but with winters becoming undeniably snowier, could this perhaps be a combination for a few massive snowstorms next winter? El ninos main weather effects seem to be during winter...and im wondering if recent trends during winters means that el nino is no longer the nightmare for snow lovers it once was.

[WXheights]

Your response contains anecdotal references to extreme event attribution rather than scientific evidence and then you end it with an ad hominem attack.

 

I was hoping for better discussion than that.

Denying extreme weather because it does not fit certain Whitewash IPCC scientific parameters  -- when we all know what we are talking about is ad hominem.

 

I would include more wind events, heavier, stronger, longer duration precip events and oddities like the March 2012 heat wave.  These would not make the IPCC grade but to the average non Koch brother influenced, non Green Peace influenced person, they are still extreme. 

 

I stick with my example of going out to your nearest Cable or Power Utility and asking them if their weather has been more extreme. If their infrastructure has been screwed with repeatedly by mother nature more recently than not. 

 

Whatever the laser-like pin-hole definitions for extreme in the IPCC report are, because their conclusions look whitewashed - they probably should include real world extreme, and the costs, because they are missing the boat badly.  Up in my neck of the woods there's millions of dollars of weather catastrophes that are being missed that affect rate and tax payers damage to infrastructure etc. So somebody smokin crack!

[WXheights]

Historically a strong el nino means mild and rather anemic winters here, but with winters becoming undeniably snowier, could this perhaps be a combination for a few massive snowstorms next winter? El ninos main weather effects seem to be during winter...and im wondering if recent trends during winters means that el nino is no longer the nightmare for snow lovers it once was.

I guess its going to depend on the set up, classic sub-tropical jet perhaps phasing with colder northern branch. If its too strong everything cuts inland as rain, probably lots of mid winter severe in dixie, but its the AO/NAO game. I think weak-mod Nino favors more NE'rs in phase, but Great Lakes like you said anemic.

[ORH_wxman]

Denying extreme weather because it does not fit certain Whitewash IPCC scientific parameters  -- when we all know what we are talking about is ad hominem.

 

I would include more wind events, heavier, stronger, longer duration precip events and oddities like the March 2012 heat wave.  These would not make the IPCC grade but to the average non Koch brother influenced, non Green Peace influenced person, they are still extreme. 

 

I stick with my example of going out to your nearest Cable or Power Utility and asking them if their weather has been more extreme. If their infrastructure has been screwed with repeatedly by mother nature more recently than not. 

 

Whatever the laser-like pin-hole definitions for extreme in the IPCC report are, because their conclusions look whitewashed - they probably should include real world extreme, and the costs, because they are missing the boat badly.  Up in my neck of the woods there's millions of dollars of weather catastrophes that are being missed that affect rate and tax payers damage to infrastructure etc. So somebody smokin crack!

 

 

I would certainly include an increased chance of heat waves attributable. Heavier precip (at least in our region) is also attributable. Wind events? I haven't seen any evidence these are getting worse, but perhaps you can point me to a paper.

 

However, this does not mean that other extremes are attributable. If you read some of the literature cited in the IPCC report, much of the increased damage/costs from weather are not because the weather is getting more extreme, but because as a society, we are exposing ourselves more to it with increased wealth and development in more weather-prone locations. An example of where this is very clear is the Gulf Coast and hurricane-prone regions of the U.S. We have seen no trend in U.S. landfalling hurricanes and/or strength of landfalling U.S. hurricanes...however, damage costs have risen drastically as we have populated the coastline with expensive real estate. (see Pielke Jr. et al 2005 and Landsea 2010) We could actually mitigate a lot of the issues just by not being idiotic about where we build or taking extra precautions when we do decide to build in these previously uninhabited areas...or expose more of our wealth to the elements in these areas.

 

 

Extreme weather is by definition not very common...so people read about it or hear about it and assume it's getting more common when that isn't necessarily the case. Especially in our digital age of instantaneous reporting on every weather event. That's why those studies are actually important...where they will use the observations and data to determine if there actually is a trend in a particular type of extreme weather or not.  Starting point matters too....for example, if we start in the 1970s, then the trend in drought over North America is strongly positive. But if we start in 1900, the trend is actually negative (less drought) as the brutal droughts of the early 1900s, 1930s, and 1950s were worse than what we have recently experienced.

[michsnowfreak]

I guess its going to depend on the set up, classic sub-tropical jet perhaps phasing with colder northern branch. If its too strong everything cuts inland as rain, probably lots of mid winter severe in dixie, but its the AO/NAO game. I think weak-mod Nino favors more NE'rs in phase, but Great Lakes like you said anemic.

Actually weak El Ninos favor cold, snowy winters here (with a few exceptions)....strong El Ninos favor mild, drier winters (with a few exceptions)...and mod El Ninos are a true mixed bag. I was just assuming this El Nino was going to be strong because of some of the hype it is being given (of course we have a long ways to go before next winter). But thats a good point about set up...it doesnt matter what the state of enso is, a lot of factors are involved.

[michsnowfreak]

I would certainly include an increased chance of heat waves attributable. Heavier precip (at least in our region) is also attributable. Wind events? I haven't seen any evidence these are getting worse, but perhaps you can point me to a paper.

 

However, this does not mean that other extremes are attributable. If you read some of the literature cited in the IPCC report, much of the increased damage/costs from weather are not because the weather is getting more extreme, but because as a society, we are exposing ourselves more to it with increased wealth and development in more weather-prone locations. An example of where this is very clear is the Gulf Coast and hurricane-prone regions of the U.S. We have seen no trend in U.S. landfalling hurricanes and/or strength of landfalling U.S. hurricanes...however, damage costs have risen drastically as we have populated the coastline with expensive real estate. (see Pielke Jr. et al 2005 and Landsea 2010) We could actually mitigate a lot of the issues just by not being idiotic about where we build or taking extra precautions when we do decide to build in these previously uninhabited areas...or expose more of our wealth to the elements in these areas.

 

 

Extreme weather is by definition not very common...so people read about it or hear about it and assume it's getting more common when that isn't necessarily the case. Especially in our digital age of instantaneous reporting on every weather event. That's why those studies are actually important...where they will use the observations and data to determine if there actually is a trend in a particular type of extreme weather or not.  Starting point matters too....for example, if we start in the 1970s, then the trend in drought over North America is strongly positive. But if we start in 1900, the trend is actually negative (less drought) as the brutal droughts of the early 1900s, 1930s, and 1950s were worse than what we have recently experienced.

I have noted that MANY charts on climate change type topics seem to start in 1970 (temps, ice cover etc)....but the frequency of droughts, heatwaves, and mild, open winters in the 1930s-50s in the midwest have been unmatched since.

[Harry]

Historically a strong el nino means mild and rather anemic winters here, but with winters becoming undeniably snowier, could this perhaps be a combination for a few massive snowstorms next winter? El ninos main weather effects seem to be during winter...and im wondering if recent trends during winters means that el nino is no longer the nightmare for snow lovers it once was.

 

 

As for your question only time will tell. 09-10 was pretty decent around here and 02-03 was not too bad either. And if you go way back ( late 1800s/early 1900s ) we had some decent winters as well as some crappy ones. Suggests to me a bit more into it then just a Nino.

[WXheights]

I would certainly include an increased chance of heat waves attributable. Heavier precip (at least in our region) is also attributable. Wind events? I haven't seen any evidence these are getting worse, but perhaps you can point me to a paper.

 

However, this does not mean that other extremes are attributable. If you read some of the literature cited in the IPCC report, much of the increased damage/costs from weather are not because the weather is getting more extreme, but because as a society, we are exposing ourselves more to it with increased wealth and development in more weather-prone locations. An example of where this is very clear is the Gulf Coast and hurricane-prone regions of the U.S. We have seen no trend in U.S. landfalling hurricanes and/or strength of landfalling U.S. hurricanes...however, damage costs have risen drastically as we have populated the coastline with expensive real estate. (see Pielke Jr. et al 2005 and Landsea 2010) We could actually mitigate a lot of the issues just by not being idiotic about where we build or taking extra precautions when we do decide to build in these previously uninhabited areas...or expose more of our wealth to the elements in these areas.

 

 

Extreme weather is by definition not very common...so people read about it or hear about it and assume it's getting more common when that isn't necessarily the case. Especially in our digital age of instantaneous reporting on every weather event. That's why those studies are actually important...where they will use the observations and data to determine if there actually is a trend in a particular type of extreme weather or not.  Starting point matters too....for example, if we start in the 1970s, then the trend in drought over North America is strongly positive. But if we start in 1900, the trend is actually negative (less drought) as the brutal droughts of the early 1900s, 1930s, and 1950s were worse than what we have recently experienced.

Some parts of the country are clearly seeing increases in what average people refer to as extreme. Just because its not the prescribed thresholds that the IPCC or you would accept, I could list many catastrophic storms that go under their prescribed radar - which makes their standards useless and poorly reflects any standard.

 

Just extreme precipitation events?  Steaming piles. How about  "wet snow loading" and yes wind events, gradient and local storms. Do you think Irene's interplay with higher SST's had no %'s of increase, making for higher Pwats, more to rain out?

 Do you dismiss the physics of warmer temps not contributing a % to flooding. You don't need a study to tell you this.  If you did you would not be able to forecast and extrapolate. 

 

So lets see - extrapolation is fine and dandy in natural variation...but when it comes climate warming -- oh hell the STFU police are out in force huh? So your extreme and my extreme need equal time.

[ORH_wxman]

Some parts of the country are clearly seeing increases in what average people refer to as extreme. Just because its not the prescribed thresholds that the IPCC or you would accept, I could list many catastrophic storms that go under their prescribed radar - which makes their standards useless and poorly reflects any standard.

 

Just extreme precipitation events?  Steaming piles. How about  "wet snow loading" and yes wind events, gradient and local storms. Do you think Irene's interplay with higher SST's had no %'s of increase, making for higher Pwats, more to rain out?

 Do you dismiss the physics of warmer temps not contributing a % to flooding. You don't need a study to tell you this.  If you did you would not be able to forecast and extrapolate. 

 

So lets see - extrapolation is fine and dandy in natural variation...but when it comes climate warming -- oh hell the STFU police are out in force huh? So your extreme and my extreme need equal time.

 

 

I'm not sure what you are arguing. Extreme events are measurable. Heavy precip events have increased significantly in our region over the past century...but you are saying that's not enough to just say that? How is saying heavy precipitation events increasing "dimissing the physics of warmer temps not contributing to a % of flooding"? That's a strange conclusion to come to when I fully ackowledged the increase in heavier precipitation events.

 

 

I still do not see any evidence of wind events increasing. No offense, but I am not just going to take your word for it. Physics would actually dictate that wind events would decrease in a warming world as the temperature gradient weakens between the lower latitudes and the pole. Thus, a weaker polar jet and weaker thermal gradients for storms to act on.

 

 

 

 

Can you also list some "catastrophic storms that go under their (IPCC) prescribed radar"? I'm sure if there is a large increase in these types of storms, it will be very easy to point out. Is this a local phenomenon to VT or are we seeing a widespread increase in these types of events in response to warming?

[WXheights]

I still do not see any evidence of wind events increasing. No offense, but I am not just going to take your word for it. Physics would actually dictate that wind events would decrease in a warming world as the temperature gradient weakens between the lower latitudes and the pole. Thus, a weaker polar jet and weaker thermal gradients for storms to act on.

 

Like I said before talk to your local utility. Wind events are up. What do you think takes down trees/power lines? Heat Waves? Minimum low pressure stronger storm intensity gradient winds and local summer thunderstorms, wet microbursts, but below severe criteria. i.e. full tree canopy at 45 mph below NWS thresholds = power outages/tree- damage on the increase, but under the radar missed - omitted silence.

 

Can you also list some "catastrophic storms that go under their (IPCC) prescribed radar"? I'm sure if there is a large increase in these types of storms, it will be very easy to point out. Is this a local phenomenon to VT or are we seeing a widespread increase in these types of events in response to warming?

 

April 15th 2007 Rutland Vermont is one example. 

 

I have not found the study. But its out there and it uses micro sensitive seismic readings that record ocean waves breaking on beaches world wide. This was about 5 years ago. It confirmed more wind events on the oceans as micro sensitive readings world wide were increasing and was directly corresponding to stronger storms in the ocean. Thus seismographology was indirectly measuring a "steady increase" in wave pounding action which confirmed stronger surface gradient winds bigger waves etc.

 

In a warmer world eventually gradients will lessen yes but baroclinicity has for the current time increased based on OHC and WV and I think you have4 had a front row seat in recent years. Now how do you quantify that?  Our metrics as of now are missing the boat. Instead will see extreme pcpn events and then go back to sleep.

[StudentOfClimatology]

I still do not see any evidence of wind events increasing. No offense, but I am not just going to take your word for it. Physics would actually dictate that wind events would decrease in a warming world as the temperature gradient weakens between the lower latitudes and the pole. Thus, a weaker polar jet and weaker thermal gradients for storms to act on.

Like I said before talk to your local utility. Wind events are up. What do you think takes down trees/power lines? Heat Waves? Minimum low pressure stronger storm intensity gradient winds and local summer thunderstorms, wet microbursts, but below severe criteria. i.e. full tree canopy at 45 mph below NWS thresholds = power outages/tree- damage on the increase, but under the radar missed - omitted silence.

Can you also list some "catastrophic storms that go under their (IPCC) prescribed radar"? I'm sure if there is a large increase in these types of storms, it will be very easy to point out. Is this a local phenomenon to VT or are we seeing a widespread increase in these types of events in response to warming?

April 15th 2007 Rutland Vermont is one example.

I have not found the study. But its out there and it uses micro sensitive seismic readings that record ocean waves breaking on beaches world wide. This was about 5 years ago. It confirmed more wind events on the oceans as micro sensitive readings world wide were increasing and was directly corresponding to stronger storms in the ocean. Thus seismographology was indirectly measuring a "steady increase" in wave pounding action which confirmed stronger surface gradient winds bigger waves etc.

In a warmer world eventually gradients will lessen yes but baroclinicity has for the current time increased based on OHC and WV and I think you have4 had a front row seat in recent years. Now how do you quantify that? Our metrics as of now are missing the boat. Instead will see extreme pcpn events and then go back to sleep.

Can you link a peer reviewed study or two? I'm interested in your opinions on this topic, as my doctoral thesis is focused heavily on the dynamics of Rossby waves, and their forcings. However, so far, I haven't come upon any research suggesting an increase in windstorms, or severe weather, for that matter.

[michsnowfreak]

As for your question only time will tell. 09-10 was pretty decent around here and 02-03 was not too bad either. And if you go way back ( late 1800s/early 1900s ) we had some decent winters as well as some crappy ones. Suggests to me a bit more into it then just a Nino.

Good points. 2002-03 was my first 60"+ winter and the start of the snowy trend. (After seeing NO 60"+ winters from 1982-82 thru 2010-02....we have seen SIX since 2002-03). 2009-10 not bad. I just think since the two benchmark strong nino winters everyone speaks of (1982-83 & 1997-98) I unnecessarily worry lol. 97-98 wasn't snowless here like the east coast, but it wasn't a Michigan winter thats for sure.

[ORH_wxman]

Local utility crews working more isn't sufficient evidence though. Its intriguing, I'll give you that....but you have to take into account the increasing growth of foliage around utility infrastructure. New neighborhoods 30-40 years ago are now more prone to damage as trees have grown in around the structures and utility lines/poles. Its the same phenomenon as damage costs sky rocketing along the coastal regions in hurricane-prone areas....they aren't sky rocketing because hurricanes are a lot more common/deadly now than they used to be (because they are not), but because of demographics/societal changes.

 

In our region of New England, we are much more heavily forested than decades ago. This doesn't mean wind events are not increasing either...but it means we need an actual measurement of wind events and not some proxy for them that is affected by other variables than the wind itself.

 

 

 

As for April 15, 2007 in Rutland VT...that was the big spring snowstorm wasn't it? Are spring snowstorms increasing there? Are they getting bigger? This shouldn't be too hard to test.

[michsnowfreak]

Local utility crews working more isn't sufficient evidence though. Its intriguing, I'll give you that....but you have to take into account the increasing growth of foliage around utility infrastructure. New neighborhoods 30-40 years ago are now more prone to damage as trees have grown in around the structures and utility lines/poles. Its the same phenomenon as damage costs sky rocketing along the coastal regions in hurricane-prone areas....they aren't sky rocketing because hurricanes are a lot more common/deadly now than they used to be (because they are not), but because of demographics/societal changes.

In our region of New England, we are much more heavily forested than decades ago. This doesn't mean wind events are not increasing either...but it means we need an actual measurement of wind events and not some proxy for them that is affected by other variables than the wind itself.

As for April 15, 2007 in Rutland VT...that was the big spring snowstorm wasn't it? Are spring snowstorms increasing there? Are they getting bigger? This shouldn't be too hard to test.

the wind discussion is interesting because I dont know any way to prove or disprove it. Its certainly not easy to pull up a stat like with temp, precipitation, or snow. What I can tell you here is that the widespread, extreme wind events seem to be less now. I mean we have wind, and I have never seen a season with more persistent wind than this past winter. But most of the extreme wind events (not related to an isolAted severe storm) seem to be from the 1870s to 1940s, per reading old weather monthly summaries. They weren't even frequent then, but a few of the wind events I have read about I can say with certainty I have never experienced. The increase in precipitation and snow in ours northern latitudes is fascinating and im really curious to see how it pans out in the coming years, when it is put to test during different patterns.

[ORH_wxman]

the wind discussion isn interesting because I dont know any way to prove or disprove it. Its certainly not easy to pull up a stat like with temp, precipitation, or snow. What I can tell you here is that the widespread, extreme wind events seem to be less now. I mean we have wind, and . I have never seen a season with more persistent wind than this past winter. But most of the extreme wind events (not related to an isolAted severe storm) seem to be from the 1870s to 1940s. The increase in precipitation and snow in ours northern latitudes is fascinating and im really curious to see how it pans out in the coming years, when it is put to test during different patterns.

 

 

I'll see if I can find it, but there was a study or writeup about how the average wind speed at Blue Hill, MA has decreased significantly since the mid-20th century, and there was evidence that it is due to increase reforestation over the region since the 1970s. Also possibly due to warming of the higher latitudes.

 

 

eidt: found it

 

http://www.bluehill.org/climate/200909_Wind_Speed.pdf

[michsnowfreak]

I'll see if I can find it, but there was a study or writeup about how the average wind speed at Blue Hill, MA has decreased significantly since the mid-20th century, and there was evidence that it is due to increase reforestation over the region since the 1970s. Also possibly due to warming of the higher latitudes.

 

 

eidt: found it

 

http://www.bluehill.org/climate/200909_Wind_Speed.pdf

very interesting. There are so many different local impacts in different areas. One of the biggest reasons there are so many skeptics to climate change is because people equate the warming of the globe to a warming of their sensible weather, lessening of their winter weather, more severity of weather, and having every anomalous event blamed on climate change...and for many thats not the case. And in some instances its the opposite. Like the crazy March heatwave we had in 2012...it was a crazy anomalous event (while record cold was seen in AK)...and it was said by some in the media to be because of global warming. So is it any wonder why GW is mocked when the same areas see a record cold and snowy winter two years later? If the media and the like would stop blaming EVERY weather event on global warming, maybe people would take it more seriously.