Climate Change Likely To Increase Frequencey Of Extreme Weather From Stuck Jet Stream Patterns

[bluewave]

Dr. Michael Mann at Real Climate

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/10/climate-change-and-extreme-summer-weather-events-the-future-is-still-in-our-hands/

Summer 2018 saw an unprecedented spate of extreme weather events, from the floods in Japan, to the record heat waves across North America, Europe and Asia, to wildfires that threatened Greece and even parts of the Arctic. The heat and drought in the western U.S. culminated in the worst California wildfire on record. This is the face of climate change, I commented at the time.

Some of the connections with climate change here are pretty straightforward. One of the simplest relationships in all of atmospheric science tells us that the atmosphere holds exponentially more moisture as temperatures increase. Increased moisture means potentially for greater amounts of rainfall in short periods of time, i.e. worse floods. The same thermodynamic relationship, ironically, also explains why soils evaporate exponentially more moisture as ground temperatures increase, favoring more extreme drought in many regions. Summer heat waves increase in frequency and intensity with even modest (e.g. the observed roughly 2F) overall warming owing to the behavior of the positive “tail” of the bell curve when you shift the center of the curve even a small amount. Combine extreme heat and drought and you get more massive, faster-spreading wildfires. It’s not rocket science.

But there is more to the story. Because what made these events so devastating was not just the extreme nature of the meteorological episodes but their persistence. When a low-pressure center stalls and lingers over the same location for days at a time, you get record accumulation of rainfall and unprecedented flooding. That’s what happened with Hurricane Harvey last year and Hurricane Florence this year. It is also what happened with the floods in Japan earlier this summer and the record summer rainfall we experienced this summer here in Pennsylvania. Conversely, when a high-pressure center stalls over the same location, as happened in California, Europe, Asia and even up into the European Arctic this past summer, you get record heat, drought and wildfires.

Scientists such as Jennifer Francis have linked climate change to an increase in extreme weather events, especially during the winter season when the jet stream and “polar vortex” are relatively strong and energetic. The northern hemisphere jet stream owes its existence to the steep contrast in temperature in the middle latitudes (centered around 45N) between the warm equator and the cold Arctic. Since the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the planet due to the melting of ice and other factors that amplify polar warming, that contrast is decreasing and the jet stream is getting slower. Just like a river traveling over gently sloping territory tends to exhibit wide meanders as it snakes its way toward the ocean, so too do the eastward-migrating wiggles in the jet stream (known as Rossby waves) tend to get larger in amplitude when the temperature contrast decreases. The larger the wiggles in the jet stream the more extreme the weather, with the peaks corresponding to high pressure at the surface and the troughs low pressure at the surface. The slower the jet stream, the longer these extremes in weather linger in the same locations, giving us more persistent weather extremes.

Something else happens in addition during summer, when the poleward temperature contrast is especially weak. The atmosphere can behave like a “wave guide”, trapping the shorter wavelength Rossby waves (those that that can fit 6 to 8 full wavelengths in a complete circuit around the Northern Hemisphere) to a relatively narrow range of latitudes centered in the mid-latitudes, preventing them from radiating energy away toward lower and higher latitudes. That allows the generally weak disturbances in this wavelength range to intensify through the physical process of resonance, yielding very large peaks and troughs at the sub-continental scale, i.e. unusually extreme regional weather anomalies. The phenomenon is known as Quasi-Resonant Amplification or “QRA”, and (see Figure below).

Dr. Jeff Masters at Wunderground

https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Climate-Change-Likely-Increase-Frequency-Extreme-Summer-Weather-Stuck-Jet-Stream-Patterns

In commentary at realclimate.org, lead author Michael Mann brought up some additional concerns the research brought up: climate model “attribution studies”, used to assess the degree to which current extreme weather events can be attributed to climate change, are likely underestimating the climate change influence. One model-based study, for example, suggested that climate change only doubled the likelihood of the extreme European heat wave this summer. As he commented at the time, that estimate is likely too low, since it did not account for the role that QRA played in that event. Furthermore, climate models used to project future changes in extreme weather behavior likely underestimate the impact that future climate changes could have on the incidence of persistent summer weather extremes like those of the summer of 2018. Dr Mann concluded:

“So, is there any hope to avoid future summers like the summer of 2018? Probably not. But in the scenario where we rapidly move away from fossil fuels and stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations below 450 parts per million, giving us a roughly 50% chance of averting 2°C (3.6°F) planetary warming (the so-called “RCP 2.6” IPCC scenario) we find that the frequency of QRA events remains roughly constant at current levels.

“While we will presumably have to contend with many more summers like 2018 in the future, we could likely prevent any further increase in persistent summer weather extremes. In other words, the future is still very much in our hands when it comes to dangerous and damaging summer weather extremes. It’s simply a matter of our willpower to transition quickly from fossil fuels to renewable energy.”

Dr. Jennifer Francis 

https://news.rutgers.edu/more-persistent-weather-patterns-us-linked-arctic-warming/20180919#.W92tRRopChB

Persistent weather conditions, including dry and wet spells, generally have increased in the United States, perhaps due to rapid Arctic warming, according to a Rutgers-led study.

Persistent weather conditions can lead to weather extremes such as drought, heat waves, prolonged cold and storms that can cost millions of dollars in damage and disrupt societies and ecosystems, the study says.

Scientists at Rutgers University–New Brunswick and the University of Wisconsin-Madison examined daily precipitation data at 17 stations across the U.S., along with large upper-level circulation patterns over the eastern Pacific Ocean and North America.

Overall, dry and wet spells lasting four or more days occurred more frequently in recent decades, according to the study published online today in Geophysical Research Letters. The frequency of persistent large-scale circulation patterns over North America also increased when the Arctic was abnormally warm.

 

 

 

[snowlover91]

Let's look at this objectively. Why are tornadoes near record lows in the US this year? If extreme events are supposed to be more common why are they so low?

 

Per this article there has been little to trend in global precip patterns. https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0065.1

"Changes in precipitation patterns are highly related to variability of atmospheric circulations, which can be influenced by a warming climate [e.g., shifts in storm tracks (Trenberth 2011)], leading to an increasing trend in global precipitation (Ren et al. 2013). As possible causes, some suggest an increase in hydrologic extremes (Karl and Knight 1998; Groisman et al. 2005; Alexander et al. 2006; Westra et al. 2013) in response to a warming climate, while others propose location-specific intensification of the global hydrologic cycle, where the wet regions get wetter and the dry regions get drier (Held and Soden 2006). At the same time, there is little evidence provided by historical observations supporting the notion that the wet gets wetter and the dry gets drier (Greveet al. 2014). The take-home message from our study using the new 33+ years [1983-2015] of high-resolution global precipitation dataset is that there seems not to be any detectable and significant positive trends in the amount of global precipitation due to the now well-established increasing global temperature. While there are regional trends, there is no evidence of increase in precipitation at the global scale in response to the observed global warming.”

 

Heat waves in the US aren't as bad as the 1930s still. Why?

“For the conterminous United States, the highest number of heat waves occurred in the 1930s, with the fewest in the 1960s. The 2001–10 decade was the second highest but well below the 1930s. Regionally, the western regions (including Alaska) had their highest number of heat waves in the 2000s, while the 1930s were dominant in the rest of the country. Droughts too have multiyear and longer variability. Instrumental data indicate that the Dust Bowl of the 1930s and the 1950s drought were the most widespread twentieth-century droughts in the United States, while tree ring data indicate that the mega droughts over the twelfth century exceeded anything in the twentieth century in both spatial extent and duration.” (Peterson et al., 2013 ) https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00066.1

 

NOAA says the following,

"While there have been increases in U.S. landfalling hurricanes and basin-wide hurricane counts since the since the early 1970s, Figure 4 shows that these recent increases are not representative of the behavior seen in the century long records. In short, the historical Atlantic hurricane record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term increase."

 

Klotzbach has this image and a great discussion. Worth a read.

"Despite a lack of trend in observed CONUS landfalling hurricane activity since 1900, large increases in inflation-adjusted hurricane-related damage have been observed, especially since the middle part of the twentieth century. We demonstrate that this increase in damage is strongly due to societal factors, namely, increases in population and wealth along the U.S. Gulf and East Coasts." https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0184.1

 

Here's another look at US temperatures by Judith Curry using USHCN data. It was hotter in the past than today.  https://judithcurry.com/2016/12/16/on-the-decrease-of-hot-days-in-the-us/

 

What's my point? It's easy for someone like Mann to make things sound like the world is ending but he conveniently ignores changes that are necessary for a scientific discussion. Why not talk about the decrease in tornadoes, the decrease in 100+ days in the US or the decrease in major landfalling continental US hurricanes? He also fails to cite any studies that would corroborate his claims, they're vague "this is becoming more extreme because of global warming" without providing data that confirms his assertion is intellectually honest and accurate. I could respect his opinion more if he would actually discuss the other weather events that aren't "exciting" and how they fit into the AGW view.

[forkyfork]

blah blah blah blah blah

[LibertyBell]

On 11/6/2018 at 12:41 PM, forkyfork said:

blah blah blah blah blah

Ironic to see that kind of climate change denialism when unprecedented levels of forest fires are destroying California.

 

[snowlover91]

7 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Ironic to see that kind of climate change denialism when unprecedented levels of forest fires are destroying California.

 

 

I'm sorry but what I posted above was facts that indicate those specific areas have not been trending to a greater extreme and if anything have been trending downward/less extreme. Those are hard scientific facts. California has always been ravaged by wildfires that's nothing new, we just have more news coverage of it now. There have been studies done on this which indicate, if anything, the trend globally and even in the Western US is flat or declining.  

"Fire regimes across the globe have great spatial and temporal variability, and these are influence by many factors including anthropogenic management, climate, and vegetation types. Here we utilize the satellite‐based “active fire” product, from Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) sensors, to statistically analyze variability and trends in fire activity from the global to regional scales. We split up the regions by economic development, region/geographical land use, clusters of fire‐abundant areas, or by religious/cultural influence. Weekly cycle tests are conducted to highlight and quantify part of the anthropogenic influence on fire regime across the world. We find that there is a strong statistically significant decline in 2001–2016 active fires globally linked to an increase in net primary productivity observed in northern Africa, along with global agricultural expansion and intensification, which generally reduces fire activity. There are high levels of variability, however. The large‐scale regions exhibit either little change or decreasing in fire activity except for strong increasing trends in India and China, where rapid population increase is occurring, leading to agricultural intensification and increased crop residue burning. Variability in Canada has been linked to a warming global climate leading to a longer growing season and higher fuel loads. Areas with a strong weekly cycle give a good indication of where fire management is being applied most extensively, for example, the United States, where few areas retain a natural fire regime. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017JD027749"

 

"Wildfire has been an important process affecting the Earth’s surface and atmosphere for over 350 million years and human societies have coexisted with fire since their emergence. Yet many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity and resulting losses.

However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends. Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago.

Analysis of charcoal records in sediments [Marlon et al., 2008] and isotope-ratio records in ice cores [Wang et al., 2010] suggest that global biomass burning during the past century has been lower than at any time in the past 2000 years.

Regarding fire severity, limited data are available. For the western USA, they indicate little change overall, and also that area burned at high severity has overall declined compared to pre-European settlement. Direct fatalities from fire and economic losses also show no clear trends over the past three decades. Trends in indirect impacts, such as health problems from smoke or disruption to social functioning, remain insufficiently quantified to be examined. Global predictions for increased fire under a warming climate highlight the already urgent need for a more sustainable coexistence with fire. The data evaluation presented here aims to contribute to this by reducing misconceptions and facilitating a more informed understanding of the realities of global fire. http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1696/20150345”

If you have scientific studies that say otherwise then feel free to post them. I always post scientific research to back my opinion, it's okay to disagree with it but at least provide some scientific studies/reasoning so people can read and decide for themselves.

[LibertyBell]

Sure scientific discussion is awesome, I was just referring to the fact that the prolonged drought in the SW which seems to be a yearly issue has spurred these fires to historic levels.

[etudiant]

27 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Sure scientific discussion is awesome, I was just referring to the fact that the prolonged drought in the SW which seems to be a yearly issue has spurred these fires to historic levels.

Iirc, there was extensive discussion after the very wet 2016-17 winter that there would be an explosion in chaparral growth and a consequent surge in fire danger. That was apparently a correct assessment. Whether this can be linked to climate change is more uncertain.

 

[BillT]

since the climate is not a force and has never caused any weather event then NO weather event can be linked to climate change.....

[bluewave]

2 hours ago, etudiant said:

Iirc, there was extensive discussion after the very wet 2016-17 winter that there would be an explosion in chaparral growth and a consequent surge in fire danger. That was apparently a correct assessment. Whether this can be linked to climate change is more uncertain.

 

The latest research shows that it is. Daniel Swain has a great blog and twitter feed.

https://weatherwest.com/archives/6252

https://mobile.twitter.com/weather_west?lang=en

Overview: small shift in average precipitation, but big increase in extremes

Previous studies have found that future changes in California’s overall average annual precipitation are likely to be fairly modest, even under rather extreme global warming scenarios. Most climate models suggest that the boundary between mean wetting (in the already moist mid-latitude regions to the north) and mean drying (in the already arid subtropics to the south) in a warming world will likely fall somewhere over California—which increases uncertainty regarding whether the region willbecome slightly wetter or slightly drier on average. The notion that California’s average precipitation might not change much in the future is actually somewhat surprising, as there is high confidence that other “mediterranean” climate regions on Earth will experience progressively less precipitation as the world warms and the region of stable subtropical influence expands. As we demonstrate in our new research, however, these small shifts in average precipitation mask profound changes in the character of California precipitation. We find that the occurrence of both extreme wet and extreme dry events in California—and of rapid transitions between the two—will likely increase with atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. The rising risk of historically unprecedented precipitation extremes will seriously test California’s existing water storage, distribution, and flood protection infrastructure.

While our research focuses primarily on projected changes over the coming decades, other recent studies have offered compelling evidence that many of these changes are already underway. An increase in the frequency of extremely both extremely wet and extremely dry years in California has recently begun to emerge in the observational record,

[etudiant]

3 hours ago, bluewave said:

The latest research shows that it is. Daniel Swain has a great blog and twitter feed.

https://weatherwest.com/archives/6252

https://mobile.twitter.com/weather_west?lang=en

While our research focuses primarily on projected changes over the coming decades, other recent studies have offered compelling evidence that many of these changes are already underway. An increase in the frequency of extremely both extremely wet and extremely dry years in California has recently begun to emerge in the observational record,

 

A very interesting paper, thank you for linking it. 

It suggests climate change is not the one way trip to hot and dry as Gov Brown had indicated while setting up water use restrictions during the drought that was ended in the 2016-17 winter.

That makes it much more difficult to forecast precipitation levels, a critical issue for California especially.

[Jonger]

On 11/15/2018 at 2:28 AM, LibertyBell said:

Ironic to see that kind of climate change denialism when unprecedented levels of forest fires are destroying California.

 

I'm sure the advent of matches, lighters and powerlines have nothing to do with forest fires.

[LibertyBell]

19 hours ago, etudiant said:

A very interesting paper, thank you for linking it. 

It suggests climate change is not the one way trip to hot and dry as Gov Brown had indicated while setting up water use restrictions during the drought that was ended in the 2016-17 winter.

That makes it much more difficult to forecast precipitation levels, a critical issue for California especially.

around here its a trip to hot and humid, I am sick from all these wet humid summers, this year I got sick multiple times and wasn't even able to breathe because the humidity and allergens were so bad.

[LibertyBell]

On 11/15/2018 at 4:09 PM, BillT said:

since the climate is not a force and has never caused any weather event then NO weather event can be linked to climate change.....

its connected to weather patterns not individual weather events.

the high humidity around here this year was unprecedented and even with air conditioning I and many others suffered through a horrible summer

[snowlover91]

27 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

its connected to weather patterns not individual weather events.

the high humidity around here this year was unprecedented and even with air conditioning I and many others suffered through a horrible summer

People love to use that word who are AGW advocates. Unprecedented means something that has never happened before, ever. That's a pretty bold statement to make. Got any proof to back up your statement that it is unprecedented in the entire history (thousands, millions or billions of years) of the world for your region? I doubt you do.

[snowlover91]

32 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

around here its a trip to hot and humid, I am sick from all these wet humid summers, this year I got sick multiple times and wasn't even able to breathe because the humidity and allergens were so bad.

Then move to Antarctica and you won't have to worry anymore about the heat and humidity, at least for a few years.

[LibertyBell]

2 minutes ago, snowlover91 said:

People love to use that word who are AGW advocates. Unprecedented means something that has never happened before, ever. That's a pretty bold statement to make. Got any proof to back up your statement that it is unprecedented in the entire history (thousands, millions or billions of years) of the world for your region? I doubt you do.

of course the climate was different back then but it was unlivable for humanity and those changes occurred much more gradually because they were natural- and they were also followed by mass extinctions

[LibertyBell]

Just now, snowlover91 said:

Then move to Antarctica and you won't have to worry anymore about the heat and humidity, at least for a few years.

thats not practical, whats MUCH more practical is the movement to renewable fuels which are much better for the environment and lower pollution, not just climate change.

[snowlover91]

5 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

of course the climate was different back then but it was unlivable for humanity and those changes occurred much more gradually because they were natural- and they were also followed by mass extinctions

Well you said it was unprecedented meaning it had never happened in the history of the world before. Maybe you should be more careful with the word choice you use for describing weather events. 

[snowlover91]

5 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

thats not practical, whats MUCH more practical is the movement to renewable fuels which are much better for the environment and lower pollution, not just climate change.

 

Which ones do you propose for supplying sustainable energy to cities, towns, businesss, etc? What do you propose cars, SUV’s and other vehicles switch to for solving the problem? 

[LibertyBell]

1 minute ago, snowlover91 said:

Well you said it was unprecedented meaning it had never happened in the history of the world before. Maybe you should be more careful with the word choice you use for describing weather events. 

It's generally assumed that unprecedented means recorded history.  Millions/Billions of years ago the composition of the earth's atmosphere was different (thats why animals were much larger- there was much more oxygen)- its like comparing our climate now to that of a different planet.

 

[LibertyBell]

3 minutes ago, snowlover91 said:

 

Which ones do you propose for supplying sustainable energy to cities, towns, businesss, etc? What do you propose cars, SUV’s and other vehicles switch to for solving the problem? 

Thats already being done slowly but surely, electric cars are becoming more and more common.  And besides renewable we have nuclear too, first fission and eventually controllable fusion.  At the latest it will be 2070, but more likely 2050, that we'll be completely done with fossil fuels.

Solar powered skyscrapers are in the plans of such visionaries as Sir Richard Branson and he has already constructed one in Colorado.  Those will be able to power cars and other vehicles also.  The Empire State Building will also go all solar in the next decade or so.

South of Long Island we're constructing a huge bank of windmill farms that will serve dual functions, not only will they harness the power of the wind but can also weaken the power of tropical cyclones before they make landfall.

[snowlover91]

4 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

It's generally assumed that unprecedented means recorded history.  Millions/Billions of years ago the composition of the earth's atmosphere was different (thats why animals were much larger- there was much more oxygen)- its like comparing our climate now to that of a different planet.

 

Unprecedented means it’s never happened before. Even if you’re talking about recorded history, you would need to provide actual proof that it’s never happened before like this summer and I doubt you have any. Just typical extreme AGW alarmist talk. 

[snowlover91]

4 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Thats already being done slowly but surely, electric cars are becoming more and more common.  And besides renewable we have nuclear too, first fission and eventually controllable fusion.  At the latest it will be 2070, but more likely 2050, that we'll be completely done with fossil fuels.

Solar powered skyscrapers are in the plans of such visionaries as Sir Richard Branson and he has already constructed one in Colorado.  Those will be able to power cars and other vehicles also.  The Empire State Building will also go all solar in the next decade or so.

South of Long Island we're constructing a huge bank of windmill farms that will serve dual functions, not only will they harness the power of the wind but can also weaken the power of tropical cyclones before they make landfall.

 

Electric cars aren’t necessarily cleaner. While they may produce less emissions themselves, what about all the waste from other sources like the lithium process, increased demand, and the companies that supply the electricity to recharge the car? Some studies indicate they are cleaner and others looking at all the other factors indicate they are even worse because of the other factors mentioned. Windmill farms are a waste of real valuable land, harmful to birds and other animals and produce no energy without wind. They are not a reliable source of energy on a daily basis. I have no issues with nuclear and fission powered plants but plenty out there oppose them. Getting past those groups isn’t easy. 

[LibertyBell]

6 minutes ago, snowlover91 said:

 

Electric cars aren’t necessarily cleaner. While they may produce less emissions themselves, what about all the waste from other sources like the lithium process, increased demand, and the companies that supply the electricity to recharge the car? Some studies indicate they are cleaner and others looking at all the other factors indicate they are even worse because of the other factors mentioned. Windmill farms are a waste of real valuable land, harmful to birds and other animals and produce no energy without wind. They are not a reliable source of energy on a daily basis. I have no issues with nuclear and fission powered plants but plenty out there oppose them. Getting past those groups isn’t easy. 

The windmill farms arent using land here though they are offshore and that makes them more efficient also because there is no land friction to reduce wind speeds.

I think that the holy grail of electric cars will be solar powered vehicles which will give the owner of the vehicle full control over the energy source (once we are able to store solar energy properly for usage on overcast days, etc.)

Nuclear fission is a good bridge to controllable fusion one day, much of the problems we've had with fission plants were with ones that were antiquated, if they were kept up to date with current standards then they would be much much safer.

 

[LibertyBell]

10 minutes ago, snowlover91 said:

Unprecedented means it’s never happened before. Even if you’re talking about recorded history, you would need to provide actual proof that it’s never happened before like this summer and I doubt you have any. Just typical extreme AGW alarmist talk. 

Just specifically talking about this area, the number of days with a dew point above 75 was double the previous record- I think that's pretty amazing.  There has also been a marked uptick in such days since the 1980s, but this year dwarfed the previous record.

[snowlover91]

19 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

The windmill farms arent using land here though they are offshore and that makes them more efficient also because there is no land friction to reduce wind speeds.

I think that the holy grail of electric cars will be solar powered vehicles which will give the owner of the vehicle full control over the energy source (once we are able to store solar energy properly for usage on overcast days, etc.)

Nuclear fission is a good bridge to controllable fusion one day, much of the problems we've had with fission plants were with ones that were antiquated, if they were kept up to date with current standards then they would be much much safer.

 

I have no problem with alternative energies as long as they are effective, cost efficient and can be done in a way that’s better for the consumer and the environment. Nuclear power plants and fission are ways that can be very effective so long as they’re done correctly. Wind farms are still not a sustainable source, perhaps something to be used to reduce peak loads on other power supply methods but that’s about it since wind is so variable and inconsistent. 

Do you happen to have a link regarding the dew point for your area?

[BillT]

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

its connected to weather patterns not individual weather events.

the high humidity around here this year was unprecedented and even with air conditioning I and many others suffered through a horrible summer

the climate is a statistical look at the PAST weather,it in no way causes any single event or pattern.....the weather causes changes in the climate stats, the climate causes no weather PERIOD.

[LibertyBell]

5 minutes ago, BillT said:

the climate is a statistical look at the PAST weather,it in no way causes any single event or pattern.....the weather causes changes in the climate stats, the climate causes no weather PERIOD.

no one implied it causes "weather" its a trend thats been going on since the 1980s and yes you can identify trends and changes in climate and those can be linked to long term changes in patterns of events.........its kind of head in assery thats held humanity back from progressive change that should have happened a long time ago... examples are the sharp rise in 3" precip events and increasing relative humidity levels.

[BillT]

1 minute ago, LibertyBell said:

no one implied it causes "weather" its a trend thats been going on since the 1980s and yes you can identify trends and changes in climate and those can be linked to long term changes in patterns of events.........its kind of head in assery thats held humanity back from progressive change that should have happened a long time ago... examples are the sharp rise in 3" precip events and increasing relative humidity levels.

sorry but the trends have been ongoing for billions of years.......no need for further discussion.....

[LibertyBell]

23 minutes ago, snowlover91 said:

I have no problem with alternative energies as long as they are effective, cost efficient and can be done in a way that’s better for the consumer and the environment. Nuclear power plants and fission are ways that can be very effective so long as they’re done correctly. Wind farms are still not a sustainable source, perhaps something to be used to reduce peak loads on other power supply methods but that’s about it since wind is so variable and inconsistent. 

Do you happen to have a link regarding the dew point for your area?

It was mentioned in the NYC subforum I saved the graphs somewhere so I'll look for them.  Basically, we had 42 days of 75+ dew points at JFK this year, and the previous record was 24 haha...... and prior to the 80s there weren't even any days of 20 or more 75+ dew point days.  The previous record of 24 was from 1983 and we almost doubled that to 42, I thought that was pretty amazing.