El Nino ?

[LakeEffectKing]

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.

A more succinct way to put it is that the AGW hypothesis as crafted is so open ended, that it easily allows the unsuspecting "caring" person to fulfill their conclusion via confirmation bias. ie....if you look hard enough (and only for supporting evidence) you'll find it 100% of the time.

The hypothesis is ambiguous and fluid, which means it won't "go away" with falsifying data...it'll morph to either include or alter other climate aspects. And thus crosses over from decent science to a quasi-political meme.

[AvantHiatus]

A more succinct way to put it is that the AGW hypothesis as crafted is so open ended, that it easily allows the unsuspecting "caring" person to fulfill their conclusion via confirmation bias. ie....if you look hard enough (and only for supporting evidence) you'll find it 100% of the time.

The hypothesis is ambiguous and fluid, which means it won't "go away" with falsifying data...it'll morph to either include or alter other climate aspects. And thus crosses over from decent science to a quasi-political meme.

I agree completely, it has become a debate based on political ideologies. Case in point, you cannot be opposed to AGW if you prefer government regulation of business. Almost all supporters of arctic drilling and oil extraction are conservatives. 

[WXheights]

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.

Not making excuses here but I don't have a lot of time..  I distinctly remember reading this with a conclusion that ocean waves as measured around the world were larger as a functions of stronger winds. 

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7129/full/nature05536.html#B2

 

 

Gradient wind events were up in recent years across Vermont, NH and ME. Can't point to a funded study for proof other that power company accounting for increased outages and this is dramatic. The outages probably include more forestation, people living further out in the sticks, but also more wind events.

[WXheights]

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.

 

I worked at NWS HAT in the early 80s -- don't bother.

 

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.

 

Yeah we do need actual measurements but data sparse region up till pretty recently. Why not use Utility power outages during wind events - ?

 

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.

 

No. Gradient wind but it was after midnight so officially 4-16-07

 

But this illistrates my point about - omission - by the "there's no extreme weather - police" - who make absolute statements while not being informed.

 

Rutland Nor'icane  it is locally called. Down-sloping gradient wind event from power house deep low pressure. 60-80 mph gusts 4.8 million dollar damage - costliest since the 1998 Ice Storm. Thousands of down trees and uproots collapsed chimneys, structural damage to vehicles and residences - 60,000 to 70,000 people without power.

[WXheights]

1997-1998 El Nino was extreme, but since this board is not allowed to acknowledge the word "extreme" in the context of AGW including ice shelf collapse or any meteorological parameter or component...I will use what Trenberth and others use and that is 'Disruptive"

 

Overzealous semantics bordering on censorship does not give you somehow more accurate science, I would argue omission whether intentional, or by error will in the end be the real loser for you.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Not making excuses here but I don't have a lot of time.. I distinctly remember reading this with a conclusion that ocean waves as measured around the world were larger as a functions of stronger winds.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7129/full/nature05536.html#B2

Gradient wind events were up in recent years across Vermont, NH and ME. Can't point to a funded study for proof other that power company accounting for increased outages and this is dramatic. The outages probably include more forestation, people living further out in the sticks, but also more wind events.

Thanks for the reply. I enjoyed reading that paper, but it is actually discussing whether seismic waves or ocean waves force the well known planetary surface resonance @ 10mHz. It doesn't make any claims on whether or not ocean waves have increased or decreased.

I'm understand time constraints, so no worries. Here is their abstract:

Observations show that the seismic normal modes of the Earth at frequencies near 10 mHz are excited at a nearly constant level in the absence of large earthquakes1. This background level of excitation has been called the ‘hum’ of the Earth2, and is equivalent to the maximum excitation from a magnitude 5.75 earthquake3. Its origin is debated, with most studies attributing the forcing to atmospheric turbulence, analogous to the forcing of solar oscillations by solar turbulence2, 4, 5, 6, 7. Some reports also predicted that turbulence might excite the planetary modes of Mars to detectable levels4. Recent observations on Earth, however, suggest that the predominant excitation source lies under the oceans8, 9, 10. Here I show that turbulence is a very weak source, and instead it is interacting ocean waves over the shallow continental shelves that drive the hum of the Earth.

So really this paper has nothing to do with climate change.

[ORH_wxman]

1997-1998 El Nino was extreme, but since this board is not allowed to acknowledge the word "extreme" in the context of AGW including ice shelf collapse or any meteorological parameter or component...I will use what Trenberth and others use and that is 'Disruptive"

 

Overzealous semantics bordering on censorship does not give you somehow more accurate science, I would argue omission whether intentional, or by error will in the end be the real loser for you.

 

 

Asking for actual scientific proof that AGW is making certain events more extreme is different from talking about extreme weather in general. Extreme weather is part of climate. One of the biggest follies and misperceptions the mainstream media tends to make is to confuse "climate" with "climate change". There is a distinction between the two. My town of Worcester, MA was hit by the worst tornado ever recorded in New England in 1953 which killed 94 people. We haven't had a tornado nearly as bad since then. Does that mean climate change is reducing the chance for violent/deadly tornadoes in New England? No, anyone statistically inclined would tell you that sample size is way too small to draw any conclusions. It was an extreme event that may or may not happen again in the near future and we don't know if it is more or less likely to occur than back in 1953. The observations are inconclusive....thus we have no scientific proof based on observations that tornadoes like 1953 are either increasing or decreasing in this area. Does this mean there is "censorship" going on? I would certainly hope that is the last conclusion a scientist would draw.

 

El Ninos definitely cause extreme weather. That is why El Ninos are feared in certain regions of the globe. How do we know this? Because El Ninos have been causing extreme weather for as far back as we can accurately record it. Are extreme events during El Ninos getting worse because of AGW? Probably excessive rainfall on a regional level is getting more extreme in a warmer world. How much more extreme is it getting? That's a good question. The western/southwestern U.S. is most affected by El Nino induced variation in precipitation patterns. A 2011 study saw a 9% increase over the period 1958-2007 in that region in the top 1% of rainfall totals. So this is some concrete evidence that extreme rainfall events are getting heavier.

 

 

What about extreme weather overall in the U.S.?

 

 

Well the NCDC has what they call "Climate Extremes Index" which combines record highs, record lows, and extremes in the Palmer drought index. Here is what they found over the course of 100+ years:

 

 

 

 

 

It definitely looks like we've gotten more extreme since the middle 20th century....however, going further back to around 1900, there has been little change in extremes as they define them.

 

 

This graph doesn't include wind events or things like snowstorms or tornadoes or hurricanes (though I thuink there might be an experimental version with TCs). So it will only tell us about what is is measuring. But we can find papers on hurricane trends and conclude there has been no trend in hurricanes either. Same with tornadoes (mostly due to a lack of good data). Snowstorms and wind events don't have many papers on them that I have found. Though both are expected to decrease according to model forecasts (which admittedly are not very trustworthy).

 

 

 

We should talk about extreme weather more often...no censorship!!!

 

 

However, blaming it all on anthropogenic climate change doesn't hold much scientific value either. There's an awful lot of extreme weather that cannot be linked to AGW...that is also different from saying AGW has zero effect on it. We just don't have any real concrete evidence that it does. That is why we stick to things like "increases in extreme precipitation" and such because we actually have some evidence for that...both from a physical standpoint and observational.

[WXheights]

Thanks for the reply. I enjoyed reading that paper, but it is actually discussing whether seismic waves or ocean waves force the well known planetary surface resonance @ 10mHz. It doesn't make any claims on whether or not ocean waves have increased or decreased.

I'm understand time constraints, so no worries. Here is their abstract:

So really this paper has nothing to do with climate change.

Yes I know this paper does not strictly refer to CC. but I'm in the vicinity. they used the same methodology as I recall to see an INCREASE in larger wave action, and it was the Increase implying more wind. I may never be able to find that paper. but I will try hard.

[WXheights]

However, blaming it all on anthropogenic climate change doesn't hold much scientific value either.

 

Agree, and who the hell said or implied that? Don't even try to hang that on me. You are assuming BS.

 

I think the metrics suck. Ex. Wet snow loading events are increasing. = more power outages, more damage to barns. that should be called extreme and it sure coincides with AGW - the metric you cite does not account for that. The snow was not extreme by your metric, therefore it never happened  - omission. that's my argument you are wrongly absolute IMO and like others -- extremely quick to jump conclusions that suits to paint someone with a particular point of view.

 

The view goes something like this correct me if I'm wrong --  Extreme weather is increasing around the globe caused by AGW. You say no it isnt here are my strict definitions that say it aint so. I think I pointed out an error.

 

PSNH utility had a study of increasing Wet Snow loading events. I think they are related to AGW. Is the study specifically relating this to AGW no - but one can use their common sense. 

 

There's an awful lot of extreme weather that cannot be linked to AGW

 

Agree.  ...that is also different from saying AGW has zero effect on it. Well that is what YOU are Implying through this whole thread.

[ORH_wxman]

However, blaming it all on anthropogenic climate change doesn't hold much scientific value either.

 

Agree, and who the hell said or implied that? Don't even try to hang that on me. You are assuming BS.

 

I think the metrics suck. Ex. Wet snow loading events are increasing. = more power outages, more damage to barns. that should be called extreme and it sure coincides with AGW - the metric you cite does not account for that. The snow was not extreme by your metric, therefore it never happened  - omission. that's my argument you are wrongly absolute IMO and like others -- extremely quick to jump conclusions that suits to paint someone with a particular point of view.

 

The view goes something like this correct me if I'm wrong --  Extreme weather is increasing around the globe caused by AGW. You say no it isnt here are my strict definitions that say it aint so. I think I pointed out an error.

 

PSNH utility had a study of increasing Wet Snow loading events. I think they are related to AGW. Is the study specifically relating this to AGW no - but one can use their common sense. 

 

There's an awful lot of extreme weather that cannot be linked to AGW

 

Agree.  ...that is also different from saying AGW has zero effect on it. Well that is what YOU are Implying through this whole thread.

 

 

That is completely incorrect. That is how you are interpreting my comments.

 

 

 

My comments to you originally were based on this quote from you early in the thread:  "Frequency and quality of extreme weather has been and is on the increase".

 

 

I then said "it depends on what type of extreme weather you are referring to"....to clarify your statement. Your original statement makes it sound like weather is just getting more extreme in general across the board which is far from the truth. Some extreme weather is decreasing too. For some reason, you had a serious problem with me making that clarification and it devolved into the current dialogue.

 

 

 

 

By the way, what type of metrics would you use to measure extreme weather if you think the current metrics are inadequate? Utility outages is not an scientifically acceptable metric since so many other factors contribute to outages such as building infrastructure in more susceptible locations or current locations becoming more susceptible because of factors other than weather (i.e significant increase in tree foliage).

[StudentOfClimatology]

Yes I know this paper does not strictly refer to CC. but I'm in the vicinity. they used the same methodology as I recall to see an INCREASE in larger wave action, and it was the Increase implying more wind. I may never be able to find that paper. but I will try hard.

That paper doesn't mention an "increase in larger wave action" at all. It strictly references how deep ocean motions and surface waves act to promote the observed surface resonance at a frequency of 10 mHz.

[tacoman25]

However, blaming it all on anthropogenic climate change doesn't hold much scientific value either.

 

Agree, and who the hell said or implied that? Don't even try to hang that on me. You are assuming BS.

 

I think the metrics suck. Ex. Wet snow loading events are increasing. = more power outages, more damage to barns. that should be called extreme and it sure coincides with AGW - the metric you cite does not account for that. The snow was not extreme by your metric, therefore it never happened  - omission. that's my argument you are wrongly absolute IMO and like others -- extremely quick to jump conclusions that suits to paint someone with a particular point of view.

 

The view goes something like this correct me if I'm wrong --  Extreme weather is increasing around the globe caused by AGW. You say no it isnt here are my strict definitions that say it aint so. I think I pointed out an error.

 

PSNH utility had a study of increasing Wet Snow loading events. I think they are related to AGW. Is the study specifically relating this to AGW no - but one can use their common sense. 

 

There's an awful lot of extreme weather that cannot be linked to AGW

 

Agree.  ...that is also different from saying AGW has zero effect on it. Well that is what YOU are Implying through this whole thread.

 

Wow. You really didn't listen/comprehend Will's points.

 

Beyond that, you say the metrics we have for measuring extreme events suck (so should we just disregard all the evidence we do have that most "extreme" events - aside from heavy rainfall - do not show much if any upward trend?), and then point to wet loading snow events as evidence that AGW is causing more extreme weather. No offense, but heavy/wet snow, while it can certainly be damaging, causes a lot less damage globally than hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, drought, wind events, etc. 

 

So while you may have evidence that this is the case and AGW is causing it (haven't seen that yet), there's a reason it's not a focus of metrics that study extreme weather events.

[WXheights]

That paper doesn't mention an "increase in larger wave action" at all. It strictly references how deep ocean motions and surface waves act to promote the observed surface resonance at a frequency of 10 mHz.

Yes I know - again, and the study I'm referring to does, when I find it i will gladly post it. 

 

the statement made was there's an increase in "extreme weather" broad term in real time due to AGW, and there was disagreement excepting heat waves and extreme precip events by others on the board in an absolute fashion. Do you then agree with them?

 

Broad term "Extreme weather" I stand by my statement. Specifically it does not fit certain pigeon holes thresholds and I can come with a variety of examples -- like power outages caused by gradient wind events, wet snow loading, two examples of parameters that are being missed omitted and are in climate trends with warming probably more regionally than globally. but and here's the punch line -- "due to Global Warming"

 

Ocean winds are now stronger than at any other time in the past 1,000 years, reports new research.

 

http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/strengthening-southern-ocean-winds-affect-antarctic-warming.html

 

Here is another bit of research on TC's from Kerry Emanuel -- which I could also argue has increased intensity but not frequency.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140514133432.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fearth_climate%2Fclimate+%28Climate+News+--+ScienceDaily%29

[StudentOfClimatology]

Yes I know - again, and the study I'm referring to does, when I find it i will gladly post it.

the statement made was there's an increase in "extreme weather" broad term in real time due to AGW, and there was disagreement excepting heat waves and extreme precip events by others on the board in an absolute fashion. Do you then agree with them?

Broad term "Extreme weather" I stand by my statement. Specifically it does not fit certain pigeon holes thresholds and I can come with a variety of examples -- like power outages caused by gradient wind events, wet snow loading, two examples of parameters that are being missed omitted and are in climate trends with warming probably more regionally than globally. but and here's the punch line -- "due to Global Warming"

Ocean winds are now stronger than at any other time in the past 1,000 years, reports new research.

http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/strengthening-southern-ocean-winds-affect-antarctic-warming.html

Here is another bit of research on TC's from Kerry Emanuel -- which I could also argue has increased intensity but not frequency.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140514133432.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fearth_climate%2Fclimate+%28Climate+News+--+ScienceDaily%29

Who were the authors? That might be enough for me to find it.

As for your inquiry, I think the question of whether extreme weather (hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, winds, blizzards, etc) have and/or will increase as the Earth warms is still up in their air. Because the climate system is highly non linear, and because these phenomenon are modulated by numerous forcings, there is simply no way to tell whether or not AGW is behind any changes in their frequency and/or intensity at this time. Making claims either way is simply foolish.

I'm not saying extremes won't increase..if anything I think they will. The past is prologue. Episodes of rapid climate change in the past were either preceded by anomalous circulation patterns changes or accompanied by them. The beginning and end of the younger dryas (~12,000 years ago) is thought to have featured the most extreme "weather" of the past 100,000 years. So yes, I think the evidence would suggest that extremes will be more likely in the future. But that is still just speculation, and cannot be confirmed at this time

[WXheights]

That is completely incorrect. That is how you are interpreting my comments.

 

 

 

My comments to you originally were based on this quote from you early in the thread:  "Frequency and quality of extreme weather has been and is on the increase".

 

 

I then said "it depends on what type of extreme weather you are referring to"....to clarify your statement. Your original statement makes it sound like weather is just getting more extreme in general across the board which is far from the truth. Some extreme weather is decreasing too. For some reason, you had a serious problem with me making that clarification and it devolved into the current dialogue.

 

 

 

 

By the way, what type of metrics would you use to measure extreme weather if you think the current metrics are inadequate? Utility outages is not an scientifically acceptable metric since so many other factors contribute to outages such as building infrastructure in more susceptible locations or current locations becoming more susceptible because of factors other than weather (i.e significant increase in tree foliage).

Utility outages caused by extreme weather LOL !! you know bad, nasty, ferocious, not seen recent and in some cases ever before weather...? Gawd! Common sense man. I know it does not fit because it just kill your semantic argument, but your resistance to words does not work well - it suffers. My argument equivalent of this incredibly futile exercise is El Reno Tornado.  An EF3 only because structural damage was not there to prove an EF5 when Dows easily had it an EF5 -- soooooo in essence there was no EF 5 tornado in El Reno -- well we all know that's crap don't we?

 

By the way -- are you Will? I don't know Will and his supporting characters. I apologies to all I upset Will using "Extreme Weather" holy ****! 

[ORH_wxman]

Utility outages caused by extreme weather LOL !! you know bad, nasty, ferocious, not seen recent and in some cases ever before weather...? Gawd! Common sense man. I know it does not fit because it just kill your semantic argument, but your resistance to words does not work well - it suffers. My argument equivalent of this incredibly futile exercise is El Reno Tornado.  An EF3 only because structural damage was not there to prove an EF5 when Dows easily had it an EF5 -- soooooo in essence there was no EF 5 tornado in El Reno -- well we all know that's crap don't we?

 

By the way -- are you Will? I don't know Will and his supporting characters. I apologies to all I upset Will using "Extreme Weather" holy ****! 

 

 

Utility outages caused by extreme weather doesn't prove a trend in extreme weather. That's the point. The same thunderstorm 40 years ago might not cause as many power outages because the foliage wasn't nearly as grown in around said infrastructure. I'm not sure why that is a difficult concept to understand that using power outages as a proxy is not going to be scientifically valid until you can filter out the non-weather factors.

 

 

Hey guess what? Extreme weather happens regardless of AGW. Documenting its existence doesn't prove that it is increasing due to AGW. Your ad hominem attacks don't make your statements more scientifically believable.

 

 

And yes, the El Reno tornado was almost certainly an EF5. One of my good friends actually chased it and got said measurements on it. But I'm not sure how that is relevant whatsoever to extreme weather increasing due to AGW unless you think there is a big conspiracy to underrate tornadoes to keep the trend in violent tornadoes negative since the middle 20th century.

[WXheights]

Who were the authors? That might be enough for me to find it.

As for your inquiry, I think the question of whether extreme weather (hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, winds, blizzards, etc) have and/or will increase as the Earth warms is still up in their air. Because the climate system is highly non linear, and because these phenomenon are modulated by numerous forcings, there is simply no way to tell whether or not AGW is behind any changes in their frequency and/or intensity at this time. Making claims either way is simply foolish.

I do not remember the authors. 

 

Well here I respectfully disagree. ?The things that are happening now - not projected but right now with just 0.8C warming are more than enough to slam on the brakes of CO2.

 

IMO this is akin driving toward the edge of a cliff and looking over at the other passengers to say see its a smooth ride. All this is exactly why this promotes inaction with extreme hand wringing caution. To my mind it's a sick world when reaction time is slowed down and we know we are entering 6th mass extinction -- by the way yet another proxy of AGW already happening in real time -- and here we are fussing over the word Extreme.

 

Foolishness X 10.

[AvantHiatus]

I do not remember the authors. 

 

Well here I respectfully disagree. ?The things that are happening now - not projected but right now with just 0.8C warming are more than enough to slam on the brakes of CO2.

 

IMO this is akin driving toward the edge of a cliff and looking over at the other passengers to say see its a smooth ride. All this is exactly why this promotes inaction with extreme hand wringing caution. To my mind it's a sick world when reaction time is slowed down and we know we are entering 6th mass extinction -- by the way yet another proxy of AGW already happening in real time -- and here we are fussing over the word Extreme.

 

Foolishness X 10.

Yeah, you cannot have 400+ ppm CO2 in the atmosphere and nothing happen as a result. Weather will progressively become more extreme and ocean circulations will change, leading to different climates.

 

I conclude that the increased damage reports are a culmination of rampant development and a more unstable atmosphere.

[CoastalWx]

Hey, the cashier at Stop and Shop told me more people are buying bread and milk for winter storms...it must becoming more extreme!

[CoastalWx]

The plow operator said he's spent more hours on the roads because of wetter snow than ever...it's definitely global warming.

[CoastalWx]

You are right Wxheights...I just asked a lineman if he's noticed more extreme wind storms and he said yes. It's settled.

[CoastalWx]

Utility outages caused by extreme weather doesn't prove a trend in extreme weather. That's the point. The same thunderstorm 40 years ago might not cause as many power outages because the foliage wasn't nearly as grown in around said infrastructure. I'm not sure why that is a difficult concept to understand that using power outages as a proxy is not going to be scientifically valid until you can filter out the non-weather factors.

 

 

Hey guess what? Extreme weather happens regardless of AGW. Documenting its existence doesn't prove that it is increasing due to AGW. Your ad hominem attacks don't make your statements more scientifically believable.

 

 

And yes, the El Reno tornado was almost certainly an EF5. One of my good friends actually chased it and got said measurements on it. But I'm not sure how that is relevant whatsoever to extreme weather increasing due to AGW unless you think there is a big conspiracy to underrate tornadoes to keep the trend in violent tornadoes negative since the middle 20th century.

 

I don't think he's even a met with the nonsense he's spewing. We had great wind measurements 1,000 yrs ago. That's a relevant metric.

[CoastalWx]

A DPW guy just told me he's never filled as many potholes as he has this year. Clearly temp swings are becoming more wild.

[Jonger]

Yeah, you cannot have 400+ ppm CO2 in the atmosphere and nothing happen as a result. Weather will progressively become more extreme and ocean circulations will change, leading to different climates.

 

I conclude that the increased damage reports are a culmination of rampant development and a more unstable atmosphere.

 

We can deal with the effects of a doubling of CO2 alone, the question is whether the feedbacks pan out. So far the jury is out on that. The whole Co2 sensitivity figures make me laugh, not because there are estimates, but that they are usually given in tenths of a degree. That's like trying to pick 6 lotto numbers AND a powerball bonus doubler and using some scientific method to come to the conclusion!

 

The bolded.

[WXheights]

Utility outages caused by extreme weather doesn't prove a trend in extreme weather. That's the point. The same thunderstorm 40 years ago might not cause as many power outages because the foliage wasn't nearly as grown in around said infrastructure. I'm not sure why that is a difficult concept to understand that using power outages as a proxy is not going to be scientifically valid until you can filter out the non-weather factors.

I'm not sure why people without power is not extreme to you? the metric is actually better because it fills data holes where you have none. Yes granted population changes etc could be factored algorithm. It's also real world not theory extrapolation. Like I said before your utilities know there are changes in the weather.  just like snow removal people, Road crews transportation all on the front lines -

 

Try to tell them there's no increase in extreme weather - what a joke Will.

 

It would be a good idea to develop a metric using power outages (wind), infrastructure Roads bridges (hydro, cold hot)  minus out population changes as a sensitive real time metric in this regard. This would be a way better metric than 2% coverage observation for every 1000 sq. miles.

 

Will said "

And yes, the El Reno tornado was almost certainly an EF5. One of my good friends actually chased it and got said measurements on it. But I'm not sure how that is relevant whatsoever to extreme weather increasing due to AGW unless you think there is a big conspiracy to underrate tornadoes to keep the trend in violent tornadoes negative since the middle 20th century."

 

Well, we probably know some of the same people -

 

This argument is relevant because the methodology to measure Tornadic intensity is totally based off structural engineering. It's specific not to the intensity of a tornado but to the intensity of a tornado on a structure. Its laser like exactly what the IPCC sites in their (my opinion)  -- specific definitions of extreme -- which in this case misses the boat because there were no structure to evaluate the EF5.

 

The only conspiracy I've seen here is the policing of the word extreme. My sense is that extreme weather is on the increase. It does not "play well"  here but it sure does in the real world.

[WXheights]

Yeah, you cannot have 400+ ppm CO2 in the atmosphere and nothing happen as a result. Weather will progressively become more extreme and ocean circulations will change, leading to different climates.

 

I conclude that the increased damage reports are a culmination of rampant development and a more unstable atmosphere.

And still its hard for some accept

[Jonger]

Tornados are decreasing as of late. Can we attribute a decrease in tornado activity to AGW?

 

I'm not sure why people without power is not extreme to you? the metric is actually better because it fills data holes where you have none. Yes granted population changes etc could be factored algorithm. It's also real world not theory extrapolation. Like I said before your utilities know there are changes in the weather.  just like snow removal people, Road crews transportation all on the front lines -

 

Try to tell them there's no increase in extreme weather - what a joke Will.

 

It would be a good idea to develop a metric using power outages (wind), infrastructure Roads bridges (hydro, cold hot)  minus out population changes as a sensitive real time metric in this regard. This would be a way better metric than 2% coverage observation for every 1000 sq. miles.

 

Will said "

And yes, the El Reno tornado was almost certainly an EF5. One of my good friends actually chased it and got said measurements on it. But I'm not sure how that is relevant whatsoever to extreme weather increasing due to AGW unless you think there is a big conspiracy to underrate tornadoes to keep the trend in violent tornadoes negative since the middle 20th century."

 

Well, we probably know some of the same people -

 

This argument is relevant because the methodology to measure Tornadic intensity is totally based off structural engineering. It's specific not to the intensity of a tornado but to the intensity of a tornado on a structure. Its laser like exactly what the IPCC sites in their (my opinion)  -- specific definitions of extreme -- which in this case misses the boat because there were no structure to evaluate the EF5.

 

The only conspiracy I've seen here is the policing of the word extreme. My sense is that extreme weather is on the increase. It does not "play well"  here but it sure does in the real world.

 

It doesn't "play well" here, because most of us know better. The whole "crazy weather/Extreme weather" is an alarmist talking point that has no way to miss its mark. Its an all encapsulating set of buzz words to get the general public on board with AGW planning.

[WXheights]

Hey, the cashier at Stop and Shop told me more people are buying bread and milk for winter storms...it must becoming more extreme!

 

 

The plow operator said he's spent more hours on the roads because of wetter snow than ever...it's definitely global warming.

 

 

You are right Wxheights...I just asked a lineman if he's noticed more extreme wind storms and he said yes. It's settled.

See you mention extreme in the context of AGW and this what happens. I must have touched a nerve.

[ORH_wxman]

 

It would be a good idea to develop a metric using power outages (wind), infrastructure Roads bridges (hydro, cold hot)  minus out population changes as a sensitive real time metric in this regard. This would be a way better metric than 2% coverage observation for every 1000 sq. miles.

 

 

I would agree with this part for sure.

 

 

But we don't have that yet...until we can filter out population changes and changes in the surrounding foliage (like a new neighborhood 40 years ago with no trees is now grown in), then saying increased power outages are due to an increase in extreme weather is unsupported scientifically....even if you believe it to be the case.

 

 

I believe climate change change has made New England less likely to be hit by hurricanes compared to the late 19th century and first half of the 20th century....but I cannot prove that scientifically. Even though from a physical standpoint that a more poleward jet makes capturing hurricanes and bringing up the coast less likely might make sense.

[The_Global_Warmer]

it is sad that without a natural climate shift all of the worlds land ice is going to melt.  GIS is going to melt.

 

Huge parts of Antarctica are going to melt.  The permafrost is going to continue to thaw and vanish. 

 

Methane clathrates in the cryosphere will definitely melt as we warm up helping accelerate the warming and transition to Co2.

 

 

It's mind boggling that this potential catastrophic disaster is treated like it's not actually going to happen/happening.

 

China is spending 65 million dollars to study the Tibet regional glaciers because all of their studies so far show incredible melting/retreat of the glaciers the last 30-40 years that is accelerating.

 

They are starting to panic considering what losing that fresh water source will do to the region.  Maybe as more "wealthy' countries start taking a large wrath from AGW more will take action.  But it's already to late.

 

Hope is all that is left.