Global Warming?

[IslandTractor]

If this was 1970 and Sandy came to shore,i would say yes, but when you look at all the weather changes total and compare those to the storms you remember growing up, then surmise your own answer. This year along we can reflect on record snowfalls in alaska, record droughts in the midwest, then combine those with the current hyperstorm we just had. I refrain from calling it global warming, extreme weather I have never experienced in my life, not in the time keeping of weather...all one after another. I feel something has changed.

I think it is more accurate to say that AGW makes events like Sandy more likely than to specifically attribute AGW as the cause of this particular weather event. It may seem like nit picking but will avoid distracting arguments regarding certainty of a causal association.

 

[toppop52]

You are being funny again! Where is that hot spell- 1934- the one that was the high point of the century?
Toppop- just admit it, ....we are forgiving- return to the fold you lifelong democratic card carrying member....and we'll appoint you ambassador to the dark side...the republicans!

I said averaged, you understand what that means, right?

 

[EE_Bota]

Re: @ robert Brown....???

Semantics- the sand has dried now- ready for head insertion.

Maine sand or all sand in the entire world?

 

[EE_Bota]

You are GOP, being GOP and sharing their blighted understanding of the world- from creationism to global warming- you are part of the impediment to improving this world. I can be ruthless when I choose, to improve things.

I am Independent. You sound deranged. I will work to thwart your misguided efforts.

 

[/pine]

I think it is more accurate to say that AGW makes events like Sandy more likely...

So you think that it's accurate to say that AGW is responsible for the timing and merging of ANY two (or more) distinctly different weather patterns of which singularly would not have near the impact (even on highly dense populations) ? And because AGW is responsible there will be more of such atypical weather "events" ?

 

[IslandTractor]

So you think that it's accurate to say that AGW is responsible for the timing and merging of ANY two (or more) distinctly different weather patterns of which singularly would not have near the impact (even on highly dense populations) ? And because AGW is responsible there will be more of such atypical weather "events" ?

No, AGW just changed baseline conditions such as water temp which increase the odds of larger more powerful storms. I am not convinced, nor have I seen any evidence other than speculation, that the fateful merger with a cold front was anything other than bad luck in this instance. I haven't really looked to see what the climatologists and storm scientists have concluded yet and I suspect they won't have consensus anytime real soon. The warmer water part of the equation does seem pretty well established though.

 

[tcreeley]

An accuweather blog I read said the frequency of hurricanes will decrease, but the violence of hurricanes will increase under global warming - fits our current season. It also noted that it was the size and rotation of Sandy that pulled the cold front down and to it- ie Sandy had more influence due to size, than our hurricanes of the past.

Weather events are data that are summed up in climate. Climate change is ultimately the result of the weather events that are being summed up into a new climate. It is not top driven. The labels are just that.
No one should ascribe causative effect to one weather data point. However it is possible to recognize that the weather data point is an example of climate change. When I speak of an autumn generally free of freezing- I am recognizing that these are examples of climate change that has already taken place- to the point that it is now predictable. For folks to the south like Toppop and their cooler weather-- under the climate of the past they would have had the warmth we are getting, and we would have had the cold they are getting (to even a greater degree). Climate change has occurred and shifted and changed the norms. Look at the anomaly maps I frequently post. Global warming has happened. However, due to the causes- I think there are more extremes to come. We will discover them as we go along.
My clematis has a second flower opening. In a normal year there would not be a single green leaf on it. They would all be dead, brown and mostly on the ground. The leaves are green and healthy. These observations don't make the weather or climate, they are observable examples of the climate change that has already taken place.

 

[Tollster]

Re: @ robert Brown....???

So do you believe this is typically weather? Just a brief freak oddity perhaps? Does it seems normal where you reside or is there a sort of difference in the frequency that seems other that you may recall?

Simple questions because I see you have many answers to various questions, but I see little input on your ideas. If its just like it was when you grew up,then so be it.

I see a change in frequency and amounts of precipitation, but don't claim to be a scientist. We can call it anything you wish, but I know somethig seems to have changed on mother earth, what it is I do not know, what we call it doesn't matter either.

 

[toppop52]

Before weather/ climate became so political I heard Neil Frank, say that the weather from the late19th century though about 1950 was much milder and calmer than was normal and that historical norms were huge temperature swings, severe storms and dramatic and rapid changes in precipitation rates. He also said such calm periods were common through history and were virtually always preceded and followed by a return to radical weather, which historically is the norm. Neil Frank is a very bright meteorologist and longest running head of the NHC, where he had a history of being the most accurate prognosticator ever there.

 

[IslandTractor]

Before weather/ climate became so political I heard Neil Frank, say that the weather from the late19th century though about 1950 was much milder and calmer than was normal and that historical norms were huge temperature swings, severe storms and dramatic and rapid changes in precipitation rates. He also said such calm periods were common through history and were virtually always preceded and followed by a return to radical weather, which historically is the norm. Neil Frank is a very bright meteorologist and longest running head of the NHC, where he had a history of being the most accurate prognosticator ever there.

I would imagine that Dr Frank has had plenty of opportunity to write up his observations and submit them for professional review. His name doesn't bring up any such publication in a simple Google search however. I also note that after leaving the NHC, that he seems to have left the scientific side of meteorology and spent the last 20 years of his career simply as a TV weatherman. Not someone who really seems to be a fully engaged critical thinker on the subject of climate change as best I can tell. If his pet theories have not been critically reviewed then they remain cocktail conversation rather than scientific hypotheses.