....

[Vergent]

Well than you would have to include ORH and some other mets too. The point of this whole conversation was the fact that the article simply is not correct in pointing out how individual events can be blamed on AGW. It has nothing to do with me or anyone else denying warming. It's clear the Earth has warmed, but most of us who question some of the posts here believe natural variations may explain at least part of the warming. How much..who knows, but I don't think anyone can assign a value. Maybe it's only 60/40...we simply don't know and the Earth is much more intricate then some computer spitting out a solution.

Science is not a popularity contest. The Earth has become a net energy importer. This is objective, we measure this. There are objective consequences; the melting of the glaciers, the warming of the oceans, and the warming of the air, changes in the climate. The extra energy is everywhere. You can not sort out the global warming energy from the natural energy.

There is no such thing as a natural storm any more. Man has burned all that fossil carbon and changed the planet. This can bee seen in weather statistics. There are more record highs. There are fewer record lows. There are more extreme heat waves. There are more floods.

You seem to want to separate the global warming floods from the natural ones. If "hundred year floods" are happening every five years, you want to say "one of these floods might be a natural 100 year flood, so I do not want to admit that global warming is causing flooding."

I think that you just do not want mankind to take responsibility for what we are doing to this planet.

[CoastalWx]

Science is not a popularity contest. The Earth has become a net energy importer. This is objective, we measure this. There are objective consequences; the melting of the glaciers, the warming of the oceans, and the warming of the air, changes in the climate. The extra energy is everywhere. You can not sort out the global warming energy from the natural energy.

There is no such thing as a natural storm any more. Man has burned all that fossil carbon and changed the planet. This can bee seen in weather statistics. There are more record highs. There are fewer record lows. There are more extreme heat waves. There are more floods.

You seem to want to separate the global warming floods from the natural ones. If "hundred year floods" are happening every five years, you want to say "one of these floods might be a natural 100 year flood, so I do not want to admit that global warming is causing flooding."

I think that you just do not want mankind to take responsibility for what we are doing to this planet.

I find it funny that when someone offers ideas that go against everything being a direct result of global warming..they are called out as being wrong when the truth is they themselves cannot say with 100% certainty. Especially when those people don't understand how the atmosphere works. So everything is man made per your second paragraph? Nothing is caused naturally anymore? The low developing int he Great Lakes this weekend is all our fault? The weather statistics in the last 60 years directly point to all warming caused by man? Nothing like this has happened before? You realize there is a difference between humans directly causing something and enhancing something right?

The 100 yr comment is not correct. Of course it's an eyebrow raiser if these happen more frequently in the last 10 or 20 years. But again, how can one be so sure it's all our fault? Is this occurring all across the globe or is unique to the US in which something other than man is causing it? Raising questions is not necessarily doubt....it's trying to find an answer. Humans love to think they have the answers to everything and blanketing all severe wx events with climate change is a nice easy way of doing things, but it is not correct.

You still think ice out by 2015?

[Vergent]

I find it funny that when someone offers ideas that go against everything being a direct result of global warming..they are called out as being wrong when the truth is they themselves cannot say with 100% certainty. Especially when those people don't understand how the atmosphere works. So everything is man made per your second paragraph? Nothing is caused naturally anymore? The low developing int he Great Lakes this weekend is all our fault? The weather statistics in the last 60 years directly point to all warming caused by man? Nothing like this has happened before? You realize there is a difference between humans directly causing something and enhancing something right?

The 100 yr comment is not correct. Of course it's an eyebrow raiser if these happen more frequently in the last 10 or 20 years. But again, how can one be so sure it's all our fault? Is this occurring all across the globe or is unique to the US in which something other than man is causing it? Raising questions is not necessarily doubt....it's trying to find an answer. Humans love to think they have the answers to everything and blanketing all severe wx events with climate change is a nice easy way of doing things, but it is not correct.

You still think ice out by 2015?

[ben4vols]

If "virtually all" of the observed warming were the result of data adjustments, then growing seasons, plant hardiness zones, bird wintering ranges, lake ice duration would all be close to stable. Instead, nature's response is consistent with warming:

1. Growing seasons are lengthening: http://epa.gov/clima...ing-season.html

2. Plant hardiness zones are shifting north: http://epa.gov/clima...lant-zones.html

3. Bird wintering ranges are shifting north: http://epa.gov/clima...ird-ranges.html

4. Lake ice duration is growing shorter, lakes are freezing later and thawing earlier: http://epa.gov/clima...e/lake-ice.html

The warming is real, not imaginary.

Yes Don we have warmed over the last 30 years. Just as we have in previous cycles. I think the "observed" warming that Spencer is talking about is concerning the extra warming vs the previous cycle. Spencer has also recently released a new look at ISH data that goes back (1943) a little further than his previous. He hasn't made any adjustments to this data yet but I'm guessing he will attempt a UHI adjustment in the future.

LINK TO ARTICLE

[ben4vols]

Science is not a popularity contest. The Earth has become a net energy importer. This is objective, we measure this. There are objective consequences; the melting of the glaciers, the warming of the oceans, and the warming of the air, changes in the climate. The extra energy is everywhere. You can not sort out the global warming energy from the natural energy.

There is no such thing as a natural storm any more. Man has burned all that fossil carbon and changed the planet. This can bee seen in weather statistics. There are more record highs. There are fewer record lows. There are more extreme heat waves. There are more floods.

You seem to want to separate the global warming floods from the natural ones. If "hundred year floods" are happening every five years, you want to say "one of these floods might be a natural 100 year flood, so I do not want to admit that global warming is causing flooding."

I think that you just do not want mankind to take responsibility for what we are doing to this planet.

There are many things wrong with your post. The 1st being science is not a popularity contest but climate science IS a popularity contest.

There is no such thing as a natural storm any more? That is just laughable. Also I don't think you have a firm grasp on the term 100 year flood. You also say the extra energy is everywhere. No it isn't. The extra energy is thought to be either lost or non existent by some and others think it is being stored deep in the ocean to haunt us in the future (which is why Jimmy Hansen keeps incorrectly predicting strong Nino's). Also Ocean SST's over the last 17 years have been cooling and if not for the Atlantic they have been cooling significantly.

[donsutherland1]

Yes Don we have warmed over the last 30 years. Just as we have in previous cycles. I think the "observed" warming that Spencer is talking about is concerning the extra warming vs the previous cycle. Spencer has also recently released a new look at ISH data that goes back (1943) a little further than his previous. He hasn't made any adjustments to this data yet but I'm guessing he will attempt a UHI adjustment in the future.

LINK TO ARTICLE

Dr. Spencer's study concerns only around 50 stations. His finding a much smaller warming trend may well have to do with sampling-related issues. Without full details concerning his sample (selection, sites, methodology, etc.), it's difficult to try to pin down why his results are at odds with the larger datasets.

[donsutherland1]

Also Ocean SST's over the last 17 years have been cooling and if not for the Atlantic they have been cooling significantly.

Oceanic Heat Content (OHC) is not the same thing as sea surface temperatures (SSTs). OHC has been rising.

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/sl_therm_700_2000m.png

[tacoman25]

If "virtually all" of the observed warming were the result of data adjustments, then growing seasons, plant hardiness zones, bird wintering ranges, lake ice duration would all be close to stable. Instead, nature's response is consistent with warming:

1. Growing seasons are lengthening: http://epa.gov/clima...ing-season.html

2. Plant hardiness zones are shifting north: http://epa.gov/clima...lant-zones.html

3. Bird wintering ranges are shifting north: http://epa.gov/clima...ird-ranges.html

4. Lake ice duration is growing shorter, lakes are freezing later and thawing earlier: http://epa.gov/clima...e/lake-ice.html

The warming is real, not imaginary.

I think for most folks, that's not the issue.

The point of contention mainly comes from those that insist warming is leading to catastrophe. That catastrophic events must in some way be tied to AGW. It's a deeply inbedded mindset, almost a philosophy really, that certainly affects how the science is interpreted.

[ben4vols]

Oceanic Heat Content (OHC) is not the same thing as sea surface temperatures (SSTs). OHC has been rising.

http://www.nodc.noaa...ontent55-07.png

http://www.nodc.noaa...m_700_2000m.png

Yes I know the difference. Which is why I said SST's have been declining.

[ben4vols]

Dr. Spencer's study concerns only around 50 stations. His finding a much smaller warming trend may well have to do with sampling-related issues. Without full details concerning his sample (selection, sites, methodology, etc.), it's difficult to try to pin down why his results are at odds with the larger datasets.

Because very few stations meet his strict standards (instead of poisoning all other stations with homogenizing bad stations). He has listed his standards in previous blog entries. They are not hard to find nor is trying to hide anything. I think his findings are quite interesting. He has repeatedly found a much lower climate sensitivity in various studies and his findings in this temperature record would obviously validate the much lower climate sensitivity.

[donsutherland1]

Because very few stations meet his strict standards (instead of poisoning all other stations with homogenizing bad stations). He has listed his standards in previous blog entries. They are not hard to find nor is trying to hide anything. I think his findings are quite interesting. He has repeatedly found a much lower climate sensitivity in various studies and his findings in this temperature record would obviously validate the much lower climate sensitivity.

I never suggested that he is trying to "hide" something. I am suggesting that the difference in the warming trend might be sampling-related.

[Vandy]

The point of contention mainly comes from those that insist warming is leading to catastrophe. That catastrophic events must in some way be tied to AGW. It's a deeply inbedded mindset, almost a philosophy really, that certainly affects how the science is interpreted.

Well what is and what isn't a catastrophe is probably the point of contention here. I think we'd all agree that a major weather disaster like Katrina is a catastrophe. But do you consider a climate change effect such as the slow rise of the sea over the next 100 years a catastrophe? What if it displaces millions who live on coastlines?

[tacoman25]

Well what is and what isn't a catastrophe is probably the point of contention here. I think we'd all agree that a major weather disaster like Katrina is a catastrophe. But do you consider a climate change effect such as the slow rise of the sea over the next 100 years a catastrophe? What if it displaces millions who live on coastlines?

Depending on how much and how widespread sea level rise becomes, it could be catastrophic (though if it happens slowly enough, humans will have time to adjust).

However, I am referring to the general concept of attributing/associating weather catastrophes with AGW. Because of the idea that AGW causes more extreme weather (just what exactly this means in practical terms is very vague and difficult to prove), there is a mindset out there where anything extreme/catastrophic = AGW, because AGW = extreme/catastrophic in their minds.

[WeatherRusty]

There are many things wrong with your post. The 1st being science is not a popularity contest but climate science IS a popularity contest.

There is no such thing as a natural storm any more? That is just laughable. Also I don't think you have a firm grasp on the term 100 year flood. You also say the extra energy is everywhere. No it isn't. The extra energy is thought to be either lost or non existent by some and others think it is being stored deep in the ocean to haunt us in the future (which is why Jimmy Hansen keeps incorrectly predicting strong Nino's). Also Ocean SST's over the last 17 years have been cooling and if not for the Atlantic they have been cooling significantly.

All science is a popularity contest in the sense that the evidence convinces scientists one way or the other. The evidence has convinced the majority of climate scientists that the Earth is warming largely due to human activities. Principally the result of CO2 being added to the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation and the production of cement.

No weather event on Earth takes place in an environment untouched by human activity. So nothing anymore is purely natural. The human influence is part of the new equation, and that influence has been growing for thousands of years at an ever increasing rate. Most notably over the past century.

The extra energy is everywhere in the warmer environment of the more humid air, warmer seas and warmer land surfaces. The TOA imbalance is not energy, it is an indication that the surface is not radiating sufficiently (it is to cool) to balance the energy flux at the TOA.

[dabize]

Well what is and what isn't a catastrophe is probably the point of contention here. I think we'd all agree that a major weather disaster like Katrina is a catastrophe. But do you consider a climate change effect such as the slow rise of the sea over the next 100 years a catastrophe? What if it displaces millions who live on coastlines?

Hard to see it as anything else.

The predicted continual, accelerating rise is going to make it difficult to maintain a coastal city without a lot of expensive tech. Thats going to drive a lot of poor people into other places and across borders into other countries that don't want to have to take care of them.

In short, its going to make a lot of already very bad problems worse at once.

I'd call it .......well.......alarming.

[WeatherRusty]

I think for most folks, that's not the issue.

The point of contention mainly comes from those that insist warming is leading to catastrophe. That catastrophic events must in some way be tied to AGW. It's a deeply inbedded mindset, almost a philosophy really, that certainly affects how the science is interpreted.

The catastrophe is decades to centuries away as the new normal will have likely become one governed by a climate well outside the Holocene temperature range which we are comfortably adapted to. Right now, we are merely moving in that direction.

[tacoman25]

The catastrophe is decades to centuries away as the new normal will have likely become one governed by a climate well outside the Holocene temperature range which we are comfortably adapted to. Right now, we are merely moving in that direction.

And understandably, those that are deeply concerned about the future want to draw the public's attention to the catastrophe they believe is coming.

Trying to associate every weather catastrophe/extreme with AGW is not the correct way to do that.

[Vandy]

And understandably, those that are deeply concerned about the future want to draw the public's attention to the catastrophe they believe is coming.

Trying to associate every weather catastrophe/extreme with AGW is not the correct way to do that.

I'm not sure there is a correct way to do it. People just don't value future events the same way they do impending events, regardless of the potential magnitudes of both. In essence it is the same struggle that the anti-deficit folks face.

[tacoman25]

I'm not sure there is a correct way to do it. People just don't value future events the same way they do impending events, regardless of the potential magnitudes of both. In essence it is the same struggle that the anti-deficit folks face.

Agreed.

Main difference being that there is more of a historical precedent for where that path leads.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Co2 is an efficient little ****.

[CoastalWx]

So will the exorbitant amount of rain from Isaac be blamed on warming?

[PhillipS]

So will the exorbitant amount of rain from Isaac be blamed on warming?

Why do you describe the rainfall from Hurricane Isaac as "exorbitant"? Haven't the rainfall totals been typical for a slow-moving Cat 1 hurricane?

[WeatherRusty]

Basic meteorological/physical principles dictate that as the climate warms precipitation will increase overall. In an atmosphere which holds to near constant RH as the temperature rises, increased water vapor means increased precipitation. As always, the precipitation is not uniformly distributed and dry areas are also expected to expand. Where it precipitates it MUST precipitate more vigorously under these conditions.

[tacoman25]

So will the exorbitant amount of rain from Isaac be blamed on warming?

Yes. I'm sure someone will try to make a connection, especially if it ends up being a fairly tragic event (which certainly looks possible). The more tragic the event, the more likely some AGW pundits will look to establish an association with climate change. It's a basic rule that the extremists feel they must follow in order to put fear in the hearts of the masses (see some responses to the tornado outbreaks last year).

This is not to say that level-headed people concerned about AGW will try to do this. Most will not. But there are always some looking for any way to "get the message across".

[CoastalWx]

Basic meteorological/physical principles dictate that as the climate warms precipitation will increase overall. In an atmosphere which holds to near constant RH as the temperature rises, increased water vapor means increased precipitation. As always, the precipitation is not uniformly distributed and dry areas are also expected to expand. Where it precipitates it MUST precipitate more vigorously under these conditions.

Well of course it can cause more precip, so what does that mean...15.2" instead of 14.9"? It's not like it's going to take some regular system and turn it into a humanitarian disaster. It doesn't work like that.

[ORH_wxman]

Yes. I'm sure someone will try to make a connection, especially if it ends up being a fairly tragic event (which certainly looks possible). The more tragic the event, the more likely some AGW pundits will look to establish an association with climate change. It's a basic rule that the extremists feel they must follow in order to put fear in the hearts of the masses (see some responses to the tornado outbreaks last year).

This is not to say that level-headed people concerned about AGW will try to do this. Most will not. But there are always some looking for any way to "get the message across".

That's the problem with the whole public perception. A few will try and blame the event on AGW and then it gets out of control in the media.

The increase in heavy precipitation events does not mean that the event would not have happened without AGW. It means that perhaps instead of 10" of rain, it would have been 8.7" of rain...but that is not an easy concept to rely to the masses. The interpretation often gets skewed into the entire event being caused by AGW.

[tacoman25]

Basic meteorological/physical principles dictate that as the climate warms precipitation will increase overall. In an atmosphere which holds to near constant RH as the temperature rises, increased water vapor means increased precipitation. As always, the precipitation is not uniformly distributed and dry areas are also expected to expand. Where it precipitates it MUST precipitate more vigorously under these conditions.

The study in this thread about how AGW has supposedly affected heavy precipitation events in the U.S. over the last 50 years states the increase was under 10%, I believe. So in the broadest sense, if one wanted to try to apply AGW to Isaac: if New Orleans receives 18" of rain in 36 hours from this event, they may have received about 1.5" more because of AGW. Which in the context of an 18" event, means very little. It would have been a serious flooding situation regardless.

[bluewave]

The study in this thread about how AGW has supposedly affected heavy precipitation events in the U.S. over the last 50 years states the increase was under 10%, I believe. So in the broadest sense, if one wanted to try to apply AGW to Isaac: if New Orleans receives 18" of rain in 36 hours from this event, they may have received about 1.5" more because of AGW. Which in the context of an 18" event, means very little. It would have been a serious flooding situation regardless.

The study was about precipitation in general and did not focus on hurricanes. There are papers that deal with

the potential change hurricane precipitation under climate change, but it was outside the scope of this study.

You are missing an important point on the increase in extremes of precipitation form the original study that I

posted. It's not only the amounts that go up, but also there is an increase in the frequency of large events.

The change in the pattern is a significant one.

[ORH_wxman]

The study was about precipitation in general and did not focus on hurricanes. There are papers that deal with

the potential change hurricane precipitation under climate change, but it was outside the scope of this study.

You are missing an important point on the increase in extremes of precipitation form the original study that I

posted. It's not only the amounts that go up, but also there is an increase in the frequency of large events.

The change in the pattern is a significant one.

You would expect the frequency of high rainfall events to go up if they weren't occurring in the past. They chose the 64 top rainfall events since 1948 at their stations. If most of those events are in more recent years, then by default, the frequency of those events is higher in recent years.

[SVT450R]

Doesn't the AMO and PDO phases play major roles in US precipitation so wouldn't they have to take that into consideration?