ORH_wxman

If anything hurricanes have shown to be decreasing through time...albeit the trend is insignificant. Blaming Katrina on AGW is just not well supported by the science.

Actually nevermind bluewave, I missed their 4th component which is "extreme precip" That one does have a good trend upward...which makes sense too since higher precip events have shown to be increasing in the U.S. But the rest of them are definitely flat

I don't see a strong signal on the precip component of their index...maybe if you start in the 1960s-1970s

The thing about the CEI is that if you remove the temperature from it, then you get no trend. It's almost entirely weighted by an increase in temperature...which is already a known bellcurve shift to the right. The other components are essentially flat.

Two of the most extreme winters occurred during that time....1877-1878 was one of the warmest winters on record....many of the upper plains stations that have data back to that time still have it is their warmest winter on record, and it's not even close. Then 1884-1885 was one of the coldest winters on record. You could also to a lesser extent throw in 1881-1882 for an extreme warm winter...not quite as widespread as the warmth in 1877-1878, but still exceptional. Another extreme cold winter in 1887-1888. Unfortunately, our most comprehensive climate data mostly starts in 1895...which is really after that extreme period in the 1870s/1880s...and 2 years after the exceptional 1893 hurricane season.

The hurricane stuff quieted down somewhat after Chris Landsea's paper in 2010-2011. I'm sure the major hurricane landfall drought since 2005 has also helped. But I'd bet the hyperbole will start up again when we finally get a major hurricane landfall. Attribution studies are very uncertain by nature. The problem is you need to understand the inherent extremes of meteorology first before making a connection to AGW on whether it increases or decreases the probability. About the only robust one globally is shifting the probability of heat waves and decreasing probability of cold waves...which of course makes sense in an overall warmer world.

How do we account for the blizzard of 1888, the March heat wave of 1910, the hurricane of 1938, the unbelievable cold (and western warmth) in February 1934, the epic California drought in 1977, and the blizzard of 1978 without bringing into play blocking?

No there isn't. Read the paper. Only one of the 3 methods showed a significant winter increase...and the increases are time-sensitive too on starting and endpoints.

You may want to read this paper before jumping to conclusions about blockiness: http://barnes.atmos.colostate.edu/FILES/MANUSCRIPTS/Barnes_DunnSigouin_etal_2014_GRL_wsupp.pdf I posted it upthread. That idea is quite debatable as is self-explanatory given the papers out there.

Linear regression shows 1.3C of warming on the NY State graph...so if we took 2015's -6.8F and made it -9.2 based on 2.4F (1.3C) of warming, then we can calculate the sigma. One standard deviation is 3.02F for a 3 month period ending in March for NY State. So -9.2 would be roughly 3 standard deviations below average. You would actually expect this to occur about 1 in 300 years.

This is a good paper to read for those who might be tempted to jump to conclusions on blocking based on short time periods....and also discusses methodology in blocking identification. (they use 3 different ways) http://barnes.atmos.colostate.edu/FILES/MANUSCRIPTS/Barnes_DunnSigouin_etal_2014_GRL_wsupp.pdf

Very debatable evidence I would say...there's papers that strongly criticized the Francis "wavy jet" theory. So I wouldn't overstate the influence.

You seem to like the idea of squashing debate...not sure why. New york's graph

You can post your sea ice predictions in the sea ice thread...just expect them to be criticized if they have no real science behind them.

You're numbers are not realistic. You can talk about CO2 all you want, but your math still has to make sense. 3 inches in 10 years is still something like 8mm per year SLR. That probably hasn't been seen in the past couple thousand years.

No it isn't. The current SLR rate gives us about 1.2 inches by 2025. Increasing the average by 5-fold starting now over the next 10 years is unrealistic.

Nevermind, found the link.... I figured it is easier to watch the Bz than stare outside or take long exposure pics. edit: thanks for the response anyway

Eek, Do you have the link for that image that monitors the Bz/Bt index numbers? I used it last time, but can't find it now.

How do you know what the PDO will be? This recent impressive spike doesn't have to a permament regime shift. It could easily get rolled right back into negative territory by the time another Nina comes.

The 10 foot sea level rise claims by 2100 are generally the same group of nutjobs who claimed sea ice would be gone by this year and other over-the-top alarmist claims. Yeah maybe some obscenely low probability, but not very practical to the discussion.

Doubtful...while the hiatus may end...temps will fall again in the next round of La ninas...they need to keep screaming upward to match model projections. Remember that model projections accelerate the warming as we go out in time. So it takes even more warming to "catch up" to them. Unless we are talking about the lower emission scenarios, which are kind of irrelevant since emissions are not low.

So, we're going to see Arctic warming exceed 5-8C in the next 20-30 years? That's a bold prediction and about as certain to be wrong as any of the other silly ones made in here. (and the list is long...including 2015 ice free arctic)

Apparently you didn't read the paper...that paper has nothing to do with SLR by 2100. Instability in the Antarctic ice sheets will take much longer to be felt. As for Greenland...nothing suggests that we're going to melt it out in a human lifetime. We spent thousands of years in the Eemian period with warmer temperatures than now, and the GIS only melted down to about 25% of it's size now. At the very least, this shows that the melting out of the GIS would take thousands of years. The only one trolling is you with a plethora of unsubstantiated claims about SLR and ice sheet collapse. There's much better ways to be concerned about and discuss AGW than embellishing the potential short term effects. This puts you right into the same class as a denier....denying science can work in both directions.

Another ridiculous statement in a long string of them.