Climate doomsday alarmists often fabricate extreme climate change scenarios that have no basis in reality - one such scenario is that global warming, from rising CO2 emissions, will make U.S. East Coast winter storms worse
Read here. The vast majority of climate disaster scenarios, which climate doomsday scientists and pundits predict, are never realized. The increasing intensity and frequency of severe storms is one such failed prediction.
The IPCC's political-agenda scientists, and most Hollywood celebrities concurred, that the supposed global warming from human CO2 emissions would produce more severe winter storms ('nor'easters') on the U.S. East Coast resulting in untold devastation and human misery.
Researchers decided to analyze the empirical evidence to determine if the Hollywood and IPCC "scientists" were correct. As this included chart reveals, over the last 55 years, there is no evidence that storm intensity increased despite the huge increase in CO2 Emissions.
"The authors write that "East Coast Winter Storms (ECWS), commonly known as nor'easters, are among the most severe weather phenomena to impact the Northeastern United States,"...defined an ECWS as an area of low pressure with a closed circulation, moving in a general south-southwest to north-northeast direction and containing winds greater than 10.3 m/sec during at least one 6-hour period,"... they calculated the speeds of all ECWS over the 55-year period 1951-2006...researchers report that "the speed of ECWS during their passage over or near the east coast of the United states varied substantially from storm to storm, month to month, and season to season." However,...over the entire time period of their study, Bernhardt and DeGaetano rightly declare "there was no clear trend in ECWS speed."" [Jase E. Bernhardt and Arthur T. DeGaetano 2012: Natural Hazards]
Conclusions: The long predicted extreme climate change from CO2 levels and global warming has not happened. There has not been an increase/decrease of East Coast severe winter storms that would indicate a noteworthy change in existing natural climate variation.
Read here. The vast majority of scientific research using actual climate evidence continues to disprove the doomsday predictions of the IPCC's climate modelers. The hypothesized catastrophic climate disasters that would be considered outside normal climate variation are just not happening.
The latest study confirming the failed predictions of the IPCC was completed by Tramblay et al. regarding extreme rainfall incidents in Morocco.
"Morocco is a North African country highly vulnerable to extreme precipitation events. In the present study, past trends in extreme precipitation and future projections using an ensemble of regional climate models (RCM) are evaluated." [Yves Tramblay, Wafae Badi, Fatima Driouech, Salaheddine El Adlouni, Luc Neppel, Eric Servat 2012: Global and Planetary Change]
"The authors write that "climate change is likely to produce more extreme precipitation events,"...they say that "for the Mediterranean basin, several studies indicate a possible amplification of precipitation extremes associated with a decrease of precipitation totals...which "could lead to an increased probability of occurrence of events inducing both floods and droughts"...employed data for ten measuring stations - Casablanca, Rabat, Larache and Tanger (Atlantic coast), Tetouan, Al Hoceima, Nador and Oujda (Mediterranean region), and Fes and Ifrane (Atlas mountainous area) - which they carefully analyzed for signs of the predicted precipitation-related phenomena..."Quoting the six scientists who performed the work, "the Mann-Kendall test indicates no significant trends in the data series for all the stations at the 5% significance level," and in like manner they report that "the Deviance test results between stationary generalized extreme value [GEV] models and non-stationary GEV models with time as covariate [also] indicate no evidence of trends in extreme precipitation for all the Moroccan stations.""
'C3' Editor Conclusions: The IPCC predicted extreme climate change as represented by severe precipitation events is not happening. This research out of Morocco seems to corroborate previous research done across the globe indicating a lack of discernible trend for severe precipitation events.
The IPCC's climate doomsday scientists have been predicting that modern global warming would cause extreme climate change leading to an increase of severe weather events - new EU-Netherlands research proves the alarmists wrong
Read here. The Dutch are use to stormy weather and have a long history of recording such events. A researcher decided to investigate the records going back 101 years to determine if severe weather incidents had increased.
"In another blow to the alarmist fallacy that climate change is causing more extreme weather, a paper published today in the journal Climatic Change finds that windstorm damage in the Netherlands is presently the lowest over the entire 101 year period of study...The resulting windstorm loss time-series for the Netherlands contains some interesting features. Annual losses are stable over the whole period and have a dominant cycle with a period of about 50 years. The Netherlands is currently experiencing the minimum aggregate storm damage of the past 100 years, though only slightly lower than a quiet period of 50 years ago. Both of these minima are driven primarily by lowered rates of occurrence of damaging storms." [Stephen Cusack 2012: Climatic Change]
Conclusion: As this new peer reviewed study demonstrates, human CO2 emissions are not causing extreme climate change in the EU region of the Netherlands. Previous studies have also found severe weather incidents not increasing over the modern era, around the world.
Read here. It has become a common practice among those advocating government control of CO2 emissions and higher energy prices that all modern extreme weather events are a result of global warming. These claims have taken on the characteristics of urban myths believed by those who have high disdain for empirical evidence.
Although there is ample scientific evidence that global warming has been non-existent over the past 10 years and that extreme weather events happened with alarming frequency prior to the modern era, a new peer reviewed study out of China shatters the urban legend that global warming causes more frequent and larger snowstorms.
Research on extreme weather events:
After the $21 billion snowstorm disaster experienced in China during 2008, Chinese researchers (Hou et al.) closely examined 500 years of historical data to determine how unique this gargantuan snowstorm was.
"From 10 January to 2 February 2008..."continuous heavy snowfall occurred over Central and Southern China...causing "1.7 million people to be displaced for periods ranging between a few days to a month," and affecting "critical infrastructure including electric power grids and communication systems," while "food production, forests, wildlife and buildings all suffered heavy damage..."...the four researchers "used weather records contained in Chinese historical documents from the past 500 years to search for ESEs [extreme snow events] that were comparable in severity,...they identified 25 additional ESEs that were "comparable to the extreme snow event in 2008 in terms of snowfall days, snow cover/icing days and snow depth," and a graph of their data indicates that all of the additional ESEs occurred during periods that were colder than the past decade...noting that their results reveal, as they describe it, "what we have learned from the past," which is that this particular extreme has become much less common than it was in colder times." [Zhixin Hao, Jingyun Zheng, Quansheng Ge, Wei-Chyung Wang 2011: Climate Research]
Conclusion: The green warmists that dominate the ranks of leftists / progressives / liberals / Democrats almost completely rely on promulgating urban myths regarding climate change, global warming and extreme weather events. Fortunately for the rest of the world, the preponderance of empirical evidence and peer reviewed research does not support the myths and legends.
As the majority of empirical-based scientists are now discovering, the IPCC's global warming catastrophic predictions have been terribly wrong - the failed prediction of an increase of severe windstorms is newest example
Read here. The IPCC, its climate models and its Climategate scientists have become infamous for flat-out, dreadful, incorrect climate predictions. A prominent prediction of an increase in severe weather due to global warming (ie, climate change) was made long ago, yet all the empirical research keeps confirming the lack of an increase. (click on image for more info)
The latest research on severe windstorms in the U.S. is another example of the incompetence of the IPCC's climate models and its "consensus experts."
"The author notes that high winds - excluding those associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, snowstorms, blizzards and heavy rainstorms - are one of the United States' leading types of damage-producing storms. These straight-line windstorms, as they are called, produce annual U.S. property and crop losses...Changnon describes how a number of adjustments to loss data of the past needed to be made "to calculate a revised monetary loss value for each catastrophe so as to make it comparable to current year values, 2006 in this study." And when these adjustments were made, he reports that the 55-year time trend "was not up or down."...study's finding that "the national temporal distribution of catastrophic windstorms during 1952-2006 has a flat trend,"..." [Stanley Changnon, 2011: Natural Hazards]
Read here. The IPCC and associated Climategate scientists have claimed that human-induced global warming was producing unprecedented storm activity, with greater frequency and intensity. Using the geological activity of the Outer Banks barrier islands, Mallinson et al. was able to determine that storm activity over the last 100 years was actually less than that of both the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age - ergo, the claim that storm activity is unprecedented is false.
"The authors write that "the Outer Banks barrier islands of North Carolina, USA, contain a geologic record of inlet activity that extends from ca. 2200 cal yr BP to the present," which they say "can be used as a proxy for storm activity."...five U.S. researchers say their comparisons suggest that "the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) were both characterized by elevated storm conditions as indicated by much greater inlet activity relative to today," and they say that "given present understanding of atmospheric circulation patterns and sea-surface temperatures during the MWP and LIA, we suggest that increased inlet activity during the MWP responded to intensified hurricane impacts, while elevated inlet activity during the LIA was in response to increased nor'easter activity."" [David J. Mallinson, Curtis W. Smith, Shannon Mahan, Stephen J. Culver, Katie McDowell 2011: Quaternary Research]
Read here. (h/t Greenie Watch) The Mediterranean Sea basin is considered one ot the more vulnerable to climate change, which is a major concern since the IPCC climate models predict that global warming will result in more frequent storm activity. To test this prediction, EU researchers analyzed 7,000 years of data from sediment cores from southern France's coastal region.
Sabatier et al. analysis establishes the history of severe storm activity, which firmly indicates that severe stroms were more frequent during global cooling (ie. The Little Ice Age) than during global warming spans, such as the Medieval Warming Period.
As is often the case, the empirical evidence refutes the IPCC climate model predictions.
"This paper present a high resolution record of paleostorm events in the French Mediterrannean coast over the past 7000 years based on a long sediment core from lagoonal environment in Gulf of Lions...we have recorded seven periods of increase in storm activity at 6200, 5400, 4600-4200, 3600-3100, 2600, 1900-1500 yr cal B.P. and over the Little Ice Age...Whereas the Medieval Warm Period (1200-700 yr cal B.P.) is characterized by a low storm activity. These evidences of changes in coastal hydrodynamic are in phase with those observed over the North Atlantic and correspond to Holocene cooling evidenced associated to decreases of SST in the North Atlantic." [Pierre Sabatier, Laurent Dezileau, Christophe Colin, Louis Briqueu, Philippe Martinez, Giuseppe Siani, Frédérique Bouchette, Olivier Raynal, Ulrich Von Grafenstein 2011: International Union for Quaternary Research]
Read here. The IPCC's climate models and its "consensus" of 97% of climate scientists have proven to be robustly wrong again. The prediction that global warming will cause an increase of storms with greater frequency does not hold up to empirical-based scrutiny.
Alexander et al. published a peer-reviewed study that found storms in the southeast region of Australia showing a significant reduction since the late 19th century.
"...analyzed storminess across the whole of southeast (SE) Australia using extreme (standardized seasonal 95th and 99th percentiles) geostrophic winds deduced from eight widespread stations possessing sub-daily atmospheric pressure observations dating back to the late 19th century...The four researchers report that their results "show strong evidence for a significant reduction in intense wind events across SE Australia over the past century." More specifically, they say that "in nearly all regions and seasons, linear trends estimated for both storm indices over the period analyzed show a decrease," while "in terms of the regional average series," they say that "all seasons show statistically significant declines in both storm indices, with the largest reductions in storminess in autumn and winter." [Lisa V. Alexander, Xiaolan L. Wang, Hui Wan, Blair Trewin 2011: Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Journal]
Read here. Kevin Trenberth, like so many of his IPCCAGW-comrades recently, is finally admitting there exists many shortcomings and failures in the global warming "consensus" science. In Trenberth's case, he body slams the climate models, which all the alarmist catastrophic predictions are based on.
Specifically, Trenberth takes issue with the climate models' inadequacies in regards to precipitation. Such as:
"...all models contain large errors in precipitation simulations, both in terms of mean fields and their annual cycle, as well as their characteristics: the intensity, frequency, and duration of precipitation..."
"...relates to poor depiction of transient tropical disturbances, including easterly waves, Madden-Julian Oscillations, tropical storms, and hurricanes..."
"...confidence in model results for changes in extremes is tempered by the large scatter among the extremes in modeling today's climate, especially in the tropics and subtropics..."
"...it appears that many, perhaps all, global climate and numerical weather prediction models and even many high-resolution regional models have a premature onset of convection and overly frequent precipitation with insufficient intensity,..."
"...model-simulated precipitation "occurs prematurely and too often, and with insufficient intensity, resulting in recycling that is too large..."
"...a lifetime of moisture in the atmosphere that is too short, which affects runoff and soil moisture..."
and finally, he has a NSS moment..."major challenges remain to improve model simulations of the hydrological cycle."
Sooo, climates models can't do precipitation (rain/snow/hail). That's not much of a surprise to skeptics, plus it is widely known throughout the scientific world that climate models are also unable to do: water vapor, wind, clouds, ocean oscillations, atmospheric oscillations, ocean currents, polar ice sheets, positive feedback, negative feedback, climate sensitivity, aerosol impacts, submerged volcano impacts, solar/cosmic/UV impacts, monsoons/hurricanes/typhoons, ocean heat, missing heat, missing CO2, minimum surface temperatures, maximum surface temperatures, regional warming/cooling, and of course, global warming, which is Trenberth's personal brass ring travesty.
Clearly, the climate models themselves are travesties, which the IPCC's lead dogs are finally starting to turn on. Although Trenberth shows some courage in publicly admitting a major (billions of dollars) climate science failure, he will likely revert to his trueself in the near future to make amends to the green radical fringe.
Read here. Climate alarmists have made careers of claiming that severe weather is more frequent and of increasing intensity as a result of global warming. Many scientists, including those in China, don't necessarily believe the climate science emanating from green/left/liberal sources so they end up doing their own research to determine facts. In the case of hail size, Chinese scientists examined climate records to determine if hail was growing larger because of global warming.
Xie et al. examined records from four regions of China covering the 25 year span of 1980-2005. They found no significant relationship overall with global warming and the size of hail.
"...produced by a trio of scientists from Peking University and the University of Hawaii who must not have received the memo on global warming and extreme precipitation events as they state “The question remains as to whether hail size has been changing in response to the warming climate” (go look up “Global Warming and Hail” and enjoy 50,000 sites on the subject). Xie et al. collected hail size information from stations throughout China and at the end of their analyses, they state “Here, we found no significant long-term trend in hail size based on the proportion of severe hail indirectly in the four regions in China, suggesting that hail size, as an important aspect of hail climatology, may not be sensitive to the intrinsic natural variability or climate change in the last 2–3 decades.” Oops, another failure to link extreme precipitation to global warming." [Baoguo Xie, Qinghong Zhang, Yuqing Wang 2010: Journal of Climate]
Read here. Are extreme rain events happening with greater frequency as predicted by IPCC global warming scientists and alarmists? Chinese research efforts, Gemmer et al., studied the vast Zhujiang River Basin of South China and determined that despite the huge increases in CO2 over multiple decades, there is no trend increase of precipitation.
"The Fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Report (Trenberth et al., 2007), in the words of the authors, "indicates that the frequency of heavy precipitation events will very likely increase in China."...Seeking to learn how this "indication" may or may not have developed throughout South China over the period 1961-2007, Gemmer et al. focused their attention on one of China's largest river basins: the Zhujiang (Pearl River) basin...they accomplished by applying nonparametric trend tests to daily precipitation data from 192 weather stations...they write that "less than 9% of all stations in the Zhujiang River basin show significant trends in annual extreme precipitation events...noting also that "no spatial pattern can be detected for the stations with significant trends."..."we can therefore conclude that no distinct regions in the Zhujiang River basin have experienced trends for annual indices."" [Gemmer, Marco, Thomas Fischer, Tong Jiang, Buda Su, Lü Liu Liu, 2011: Journal of Climate]
Read here. Map source here. Wet, cold, stormy, miserable, severe weather can be an indicator of a global cooling climate phase. As past empirical evidence well documents, the climate makes swings from warmer to cooler phases, which impacts local and regional weather patterns.
New research (Griessinger et al.) from China confirms that global cooling can cause weather to become wetter and soggier even in semi-arid areas during the hot summer months of the Northern Hemisphere. (click on images to enlarge)
"Based on correlations they exhibited with climate data, tree-ring δ18O measurements of high-elevation Tibetan junipertrees...state that the 800-year annually-resolved oxygen isotope series they developed reflects long-term variations in Asian summer monsoon (ASM) activity in that part of the world. And this history, as they describe it, reveals an "ASM minimum during the Medieval Warm Period (around 1200-1400) and moister conditions during the Little Ice Age (1400-1900),"...This close but inverse correspondence between centennial-scale precipitation anomalies and similar well-known global temperature anomalies (the MWP, LIA and CWP) provides further evidence for the historical reality of the MWP on the Tibetan Plateau,..." [Jussi Grissinger, Achim Bräuning, Gerd Helle, Axel Thomas, Gerhard Schleser 2011: Geophysical Research Letters]
Read here and here. The latest research is pointing to another causation of modern climate change: the ozone hole. It appears that the ozone hole affects climate from the southern polar to equator regions, with a special impact on circulation patterns and precipitation levels.
The researchers, Kang et al., make a point that the clueless IPCC did not even mention the ozone hole as a potential climate change force in the 2007 policymaker summary. And recently, it was discovered that an ozone hole is developing in the Arctic polar region.
"“This could be a real game-changer,”...researchers at Columbia University’s School of Engineering and Applied Science report their findings that the ozone hole, which is located over the South Pole, has affected the entire circulation of the Southern Hemisphere all the way to the equator...“We show in this study that it has large and far-reaching impacts. The ozone hole is a big player in the climate system!”...This means, according to Polvani and Kang, that international agreements about mitigating climate change cannot be confined to dealing with carbon alone— ozone needs to be considered, too...“While the ozone hole has been considered as a solved problem, we’re now finding it has caused a great deal of the climate change that’s been observed.” So, even though CFCs are no longer being added to the atmosphere, and the ozone layer will recover in the coming decades, the closing of the ozone hole will have a considerable impact on climate." [Sarah Kang, Lorenzo M. Polvani, J. C. Fyfe, M. Sigmond 2011: Science]
From another climate scientist:
“This study does illustrate the important point that different mechanisms of global change are contributing to the climate impacts we’re seeing around the world,” observed Professor Myles Allen of Oxford University, a leading UK climate modeller...“It’s very important to unpack them all rather than assuming that any impact we see is down simply to greenhouse gas-mediated warming.”
Read here. The count of failed IPCC climate model predictions being wrong is likely unprecedented in the annals of science. Indian researchers confirmed another climate model failure in regards to predicted precipitation trends across their entire country.
Analyzing data from the 1901 to 2000, the researchers found that whatever global warming has taken place it has not caused an increase in mean annual rainfall.
"In light of global warming projections made by models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the authors write that several scientists have suggested that "ocean temperature patterns in the tropics and subtropics will change in ways that will lead to noteworthy changes in rainfall patterns."...Based on precipitation data they obtained from 1384 rain-gauge stations maintained by the India Meteorological Department...The two researchers state that for all of India, as well as for each of its four sub-regions, there was substantial inter-decadal variability of annual rainfall that could be "attributed to the inter-decadal variability of eastern equatorial Pacific SST (Niño 3) or Indian Ocean Dipole Mode," but they say that "no significant trend is discernable during the last ten decades..." [Manish K. Joshi and A. C. Pandey 2011: Journal of Geophysical Research]
In Europe's past there have been severe superstorms (category 3 intensity or more) that have struck the Mediterranean coast of Europe. By analyzing sediment cores, Dezileau et al. were able to determine that all the catastrophic storms struck before 1900, primarily during the coldest periods of the Little Ice Age and the onset of the cooler Dark Ages.
The evidence shows that periods of global cooling trends, not global warming phases, are when Europe is at its most vulnerable for Mediterranean superstorms striking.
"With respect to extreme weather events, the authors write that the major question of the day is: "are they linked to global warming or are they part of natural climate variability?"...because "these extreme events are inherently rare and therefore difficult to observe in the period of a human life."...Dezileau et al. assessed "the frequency and intensity of these events during the last 1500 years," as well as "links between past climatic conditions and storm activities."...report they found evidence of four "catastrophic storms of category 3 intensity or more," which occurred at approximately AD 455, 1742, 1848 and 1893...all four of the storms "can be called superstorms."...Dezileau et al. suggest that "extreme storm events are associated with a large cooling of Europe,"..." [L. Dezileaua, P. Sabatiera, P. Blanchemanchec, B. Jolyd, D. Swingedouwe, C. Cassoue, J. Castaingsa, P. Martinezf and U. Von Grafensteing 2011: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology]
Read here. Global warming and climate change alarmists always attempt to connect an extreme weather event with CO2-induced global warming or human-caused climate change. They always perform this verbal trick without any investigation and analysis of the actual scientific evidence. As is the usual outcome, almost 100% of the time, when the science due diligence is completed, the alarmist claim is without merit. It happened again with the claims of extreme rainfall in the New England area.
In a new peer-reviewed study, scientists examining recent decade events of extreme rainfall found that they were not actually extraordinary when the long-term weather record of events was considered. Going back to 1893, they confirmed that the trend of extreme rainfall was unchanging, and indeed that these events also happened well before the human CO2 increase, which is purported to cause more rain and extreme weather.
In essence, they re-discovered that extreme rainfall events are the natural order of things - they happen regardless of man or CO2.
"Concerned with the oft-heard contention that "the climate is changing across North America," and that precipitation events "have been occurring more frequently and with much greater intensity in the last few decades than has been seen in the past"...the two researchers had as their objective "to investigate the presence of trends in extreme precipitation.....the two researchers did indeed determine there was "a strong increase in the magnitude of extreme precipitation events over the last three decades," and they also determined that "the frequency of extreme rainfall events appears to be increasing." But over the much longer 51-year period of 1954-2005, they found that the trend in MAXP [extreme precipitation] was "amazingly stationary." And working with seven stations having records stretching all the way back to 1893, they also found that "annual maximum precipitation in northern New England was relatively stationary..." [Ellen M. Douglas and Chelsea A. Fairbank 2011: Journal of Hydrologic Engineering]
Read here. As most residents of the Sierra Nevada Mountains know, the IPCC claims of declining snowfall in the Sierra Neveda Mountains has been thoroughly invalidated by regular anecdotal evidence. Now, new scientific research confirms that the global models used by the IPCC to predict snowfall are indeed worthless, as this peer-reviewed study documents:
"Christy and Hnilo reconstructed a time series of annual snowfall totals for Huntington Lake in the southern Sierra Nevada of California over the period 1916 to 2009. Results indicated a mean annual snowfall at Huntington Lake of 624 cm over the period of record, with an insignificant positive trend of increasing snowfall of 0.5 cm per decade.....conclude "these results combined with published temperature time series, which also reveal no significant trends, form a consistent picture of no remarkable long-term changes in the snowfall of this area and elevation of the southern Sierra Nevada of California since the early 20th century." In contrast with model projections of the western USA becoming drier as a results of CO2-induced global warming, the supposedly unprecedented 20th century rise in air temperature has had no measurable effect on Sierra Nevada snowfall at Huntington Lake." [John R. Christy and Justin J. Hnilo 2010: Energy & Environment]
Read here. Latest research out of Japan confirms IPCC-based climate models to be worthless, again. Climate models had predicted that CO2 induced global warming would cause precipitation levels to increase. Despite a 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 over 100 years, the Japanese regional rainfall data studies show no increase in precipitation.
"Using digitized historical daily precipitation data from 37 stations of the Japan Meteorological Agency -- which were spread across both Eastern and Western Japan... -- Endo analyzed the data for "long-term changes of the Baiu rainfall during the last 109 years," in order to see how close they would come to confirming or refuting state-of-the-art climate model predictions of increased rainfall.....he adds that the same holds true, i.e., that no significant trends are recognized, "in the entire Baiu season (June to July) over all regions.".....Endo's findings clearly indicate that climate model projections of increased Baiu rainfall in response to global warming...over a period of time when the world's climate alarmists claim the earth warmed at a rate and to a level that were both unprecedented over the past millennium or more -- are simply not correct." [Hirokazu Endo 2011: Scientific Online Letters on the Atmosphere]
Read here. The global warming hypothesis (AGW) and alarmists make the claim that warming will induce a greater frequency and intensity of rainfall events. From the empirical evidence, it is now known that an "increase" of storm activity, such as hurricanes, has actually been on the decrease. (click on image to enlarge)
Yet, there are areas of the world where increases of heavy rainfalls have been noted. One such area is the monsoon region of India. Now, after much research, scientists are saying that the increase of heavy rainfalls is actually being caused by urbanization, not global warming. In essence, as researchers (Kishtawal et al.) have shown, urban areas have experienced the increase of intense rainfall events, not rural areas in the same region.
"In a study of the Indian subcontinent, Kishtawal et al. assessed the impacts of urbanization on the region's rainfall characteristics during the time of the Indian summer monsoon by analyzing in situ and satellite-based precipitation and population datasets...their study showed "a significantly increasing trend in the frequency of heavy rainfall climatology over urban regions of India during the monsoon season," adding that "urban regions experience less occurrences of light rainfall and significantly higher occurrences of intense precipitation compared to non-urban regions.".....The authors note that the early studies of Changnon (1968), Landsberg (1970) and Huff and Changnon (1972) yielded "evidence of warm seasonal rainfall increases of 9-17% downwind of major cities,"" [C. M. Kishtawal, Dev Niyogi, Mukul Tewari, Roger A. Pielke Sr., J. Marshall Shepherd 2010: International Journal of Climatology]
Previous 'C3' postings have discussed the incredibleandhysterical alarmist claims that Arctic warming was causing colder temperatures and snowstorms in more southern latitudes. As the CSI group of NOAA scientists determined, the principal culprits causing the December, January and February snowstorms were the climate oscillations known as El Niño and the North Atlantic Oscillation, which were simultaneously in a negative mode.
Having these two oscillations in the negative phase during winter months does not bode well for areas of Europe and the United States, in terms of cold and snow. But what happens when there are four major climate patterns all in their respective negative modes?
If all four patterns are in the negative mode, the predictability of foul winter weather happening in large areas of North America and Eurasia becomes incredibly high - and it has absolutely nothing to do with human CO2 and/or Arctic warming. These climate patterns are natural. (click on images to enlarge)
Note: The black curve in each graph represents a polynomial attempt at curve fitting. The curve indicates where the data has been in terms of overall direction at different periods. The curve has no statistical predictability value.
Update of interest, 3-2-11: While examining both the Antarctic Oscillation (AAO) and Southern Oscillation (SO), it appeared to the naked eye that both of these indicies were usually in their own negative mode when the El Niño was in its positive mode, as represented by the ONI index. By flipping the plotted data for both the SO and the AAO, the similarity for latter part of 2010, and previous periods, becomes more apparent.
The graphical depictions of these six climate patterns reveal that all were moving towards and/or occupying extreme points of their historical variation ranges, while the winter weather in the northern hemisphere was getting worse during the 2010/2011 winter (in terms of cold and precipitation).
Read here and here. The recent cold and snowy weather that some regions of the northern hemisphere have recently suffered has been determined by climate scientists to be a direct result of major ocean/atmospheric oscillations - namely, the combined, simultaneous negative modes of: the NAO, the AO and the El Niño. In the most prominent analysis, NOAA climate scientists revealed what the greenhouse gas-based climate models predicted in terms of winter precipitation (top chart) and what was actually observed (bottom chart). (click on images to enlarge; images source here)
By comparing these two charts, the virtual world versus the real-world, it is obvious there are significant issues (problems? failures?) with the government, bureaucrat-scientist designed climate models.
Those issues? One, climate models are totally inept at predictions and forecasting, even in the short-run of several months. Two, CO2 and other human produced greenhouse gases have little, if any, causation for producing severe weather, such as cold and precipitation. Or, three, a combination of the latter two, which help explains why climate modellers are sooo wrong, sooo frequently.
To put this into greater context of CO2-based climate models' and modeller failures, recall the utter failure of recent hurricane/cyclone seasonal forecasts for their being more intense and frequent; the prediction failure of the 2010 Russian heat wave; and, the concurrent failure to predict the large Pakistan rain/flooding event.
Yet, left/liberal/progressive "scientists" pushing their favored political agenda continue to proselytize the idea that CO2 and global warming are the cause of severe weather events, including the current severe cold and snow. Their denial of both the actual empirical evidence and peer-reviewed scientific literature is a conclusive testament to the left's anti-science mentality and propaganda.
Read here. The standard climate alarmist operating procedure for most leftists/liberals/progressives is to blame any major weather event as the result of CO2-induced global warming. No matter how unlikely and tenuous the relationship between warming and the weather event might be, the alarmists, from the event's gitgo, just fabricate lies about cause and effect, hoping the compliant mainstream media will simply parrot the lies to promote the political agenda against CO2.
This past summer we saw this happen with the Russian heat wave and the Pakistan floods - an immediate alarmist claim that these events were the result of global warming. As is usually the case, climate scientists eventually determined the liberal/left/progressive/Democrat alarmist claims (that global warming was the culprit for 2010 flooding and heat waves) were revealed to be convenient lies for political purposes. The same has now happened for the big snows that hit the U.S. - NOAA confirms that prominent AGW alarmists were lying again:
"Specifically, they wanted to know if human-induced global warming could have caused the snowstorms due to the fact that a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor. The [NOAA] CSI Team’s analysis indicates that’s not likely. They found no evidence — no human “fingerprints” — to implicate our involvement in the snowstorms. If global warming was the culprit, the team would have expected to find a gradual increase in heavy snowstorms in the mid-Atlantic region as temperatures rose during the past century. But historical analysis revealed no such increase in snowfall."
Read here. Despite Al Gore's pathetic excuse for a "scientific" analysis of recent winter cold temperatures and snowstorms, meteorologists and climate scientists know well what's driving these recent 'cold & snow' experiences. A combination of known natural climate patterns and ocean/atmospheric modes, way more powerful than the trace gas CO2, are again making their existence a shivering reality this winter.
Even some MSM outlets know what's truly happening this winter:
"USA Today, Dec 29, 2010: “Teeth-chattering, bitterly cold winds have swept across the eastern half of the USA this month, sending December temperatures to near-record cold levels all the way from Minneapolis to Miami. Blame it mainly on the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and its close cousin, the Arctic Oscillation (AO). These large-scale climate patterns in the atmosphere over the Arctic and north Atlantic Ocean strongly affect winter weather. … Vikings recorded these effects nearly a thousand years ago, according to James Hurrell of the National Center for Atmospheric Research.” [http://www.usatoday.com/weather/forecast/2010-12-28-whysocold28_ST_N.htm]
Cleveland.com, Jan 9, 2011: “A bitter wind has been blowing over parts of North America, Europe and Asia. Some places have been colder than ever, like Melbourne, Fla., which dipped to 28 degrees last Thursday, a record low. Europe has been walloped by snowstorm after snowstorm. … This situation is caused by Arctic oscillation, in which opposing atmospheric pressure patterns at the top of the planet occasionally shift back and forth, affecting weather across much of the Northern Hemisphere." [http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/01/arctic_oscillation_is_behind_a.html]
WHNT News, Jan. 18, 2011: “NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — If you're looking for a culprit in a cold and snowy Tennessee winter, pin it on Arctic oscillation. The National Weather Service office in Nashville says that's a weather pattern in which atmospheric pressure at polar and middle latitude fluctuates between negative and positive phases.” [http://www.whnt.com/news/sns-bc-tn--winterweather,0,3729918.story] "
Read here. The frequency of lies about climate change has grown exponentially over the last few decades, as every single weather event is now turned into a global warming propaganda victim. An example of this ludicrous weather propagandizing by the mainstream media, and your typical left-liberal-progressive-green "elite", is the claim that big snowstorms are increasing in frequency and intensity, now heard every single time a new snowstorm hits.
Unfortunately for the liars pushing the "extreme weather" propaganda meme, the real-world empirical evidence does not even come close to hinting that today's weather is any more extreme than it was some 60 years ago.
"Conclusion: there appears to be little or no change in the frequency of major snow storms over the past 30 to 55 years, at least in the Northeast U.S. and in the Front Range foothills of Colorado."
Read here. As all empirical climate research demonstrates, climate models are atrocious prediction tools. The latest example is a peer-reviewed study by a team of 9 researchers from the U.S., the UK and Australia that found climate models to be worthless regarding precipitation levels and intensity.
"Stephens et al. determined that "the character of liquid precipitation (defined as a combination of accumulation, frequency, and intensity) over the global oceans is significantly different from the character of liquid precipitation produced by global weather and climate models," noting that "the differences between observed and modeled precipitation are larger than can be explained.....say their results imply that state-of-the-art weather and climate models have "little skill in precipitation calculated at individual grid points," and that "applications involving downscaling of grid point precipitation to yet even finer-scale resolution has little foundation and relevance to the real earth system," which is not too encouraging a result, considering it is the "real earth system" in which we live and for which we have great concern." [Graeme L. Stephens, Tristan L'Ecuyer, Richard Forbes, Andrew Gettlemen, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Alejandro Bodas-Salcedo, Kentaroh Suzuki, Philip Gabriel, John Haynes, J. 2010: Journal of Geophysical Research]
Read here. In an obvious effort to promote the political agenda of global warming and the control/regulation/taxing of CO2 emitting fossil fuels, the IPCC, of 'Climategate' fame, chose to make hysterical predictions of weather calamities and disasters due to AGW.
As is well documented, the IPCC predicted that the world would suffer from more frequent and intense precipitation downpours because a warmer atmosphere (due to increased levels of CO2) holds more water vapor. A group of scientists decided to test this theoretical prediction against real world evidence.
Using data from the Hawaiian Island area, Chu et al. determined that instead of heavy downpours becoming more frequent and intense that the IPCC climate models predicted, the opposite was found: less frequent and less intense.
"In a study designed to address this question, Chu et al. write that "for the first time, five climate change indices for extreme precipitation (four related to wetness and one related to dryness) in Hawaii have been calculated," based on "daily observational records from the 1950s to 2007." These specific indices are (1) the simple daily intensity index, (2) the total number of days with precipitation ≥25.4 mm, (3) the annual maximum consecutive 5-day precipitation amount, (4) the fraction of annual total precipitation from events exceeding the 1961-1990 95th percentile, and (5) the number of consecutive dry days.....Chu et al. determined that the precipitation predictions of the IPCC had not only not been realized throughout the part of the Pacific that is home to the Hawaiian Islands, but that just the opposite had occurred there, once again demonstrating the degree to which the climate models employed by the IPCC fail to represent reality." [Chu, P.-S., Chen, Y.R. and Schroeder, T.A. 2010: Journal of Climate]
Read here. The Peng et al. peer-reviewed study analyzed the arid and semi-arid areas of western China and found that winter snow depth has increased over the last 30 years. This increased moisture has reduced soil erosion, increased overall vegetation levels and reduced the frequency of sandstorms.
These beneficial climate changes took place during the modern global warming, which is another example of global warming producing positive resluts, opposite of the catastrophic predicted outcomes pushed by global warming alarmists.
"The five researchers report that "over the past three decades, winter snow depth overall increased in northern China, particularly in the most arid and semiarid regions of western China where desert and grassland are mainly distributed," and they say that in those specific areas there were positive correlations between mean winter snow depth and spring NDVI [Normalized Difference Vegetation Index] data.....In discussing the implications of their findings, Peng et al. write that the "increase in vegetation coverage in arid and semiarid regions of China, possibly driven by winter snow, will likely restore soil and enhance its antiwind-erosion ability, reducing the possibility of released dust and mitigating sand-dust storms," while noting that the frequency of sand-dust storms has indeed "declined in China since the early 1980s." [Peng, S., Piao, S., Ciais, P., Fang, J. and Wang, X. 2010: Global Change Biology 16: 3004-3013]
Read here. Of course, the rest of us have to endure the scientific idiocy and illiteracy of the coastal liberal/left MSM, and pundits, about "global warming" causing blizzards, cold and snow, but fortunately there are many alternative news outlets promoting climate sanity, not the lame Katie Couric or NPR-style of "global warming" hysteria.
THE BLIZZARD’S VICTIMS:TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY SEVEN LIVES LOST - January 21, 1888
IN A BLIZZARD’S GRASP: THE WORST STORM THE CITY HAS EVER KNOWN, BUSINESS AND TRAVEL COMPLETELY SUSPENDED - March 13, 1888
"New-York helpless in a tornado of wind and snow which paralyzed all industry, isolated the city from the rest of the country, caused many accidents and great discomfort, and exposed it to many dangers."
"That yesterday's blizzard was something heretofore unheard of and unrecorded in this city was everywhere admitted."
As the vast majority of liberals/leftists/progressives/Democrats are unaware of, due to their total belief in the emanations from government regulated/subsidized MSM, climate change is a constant, natural phenomenon that appears to be currently headed towards a global cooling phase, which better explains so much cold and blustery weather experienced across the world.
Read here. Climate scientists who promulgate the IPCC-AGW hysteria predicted that hailstorms would become more frequent and intense, including the phenomenon of larger hailstones. The latest peer-reviewed research determines this prediction without any significant merit.
"Climate alarmists contend that various types of extreme weather events become both more frequent and more extreme as the world warms; and the authors write, in this regard, that "hail is one of the most extreme weather phenomena, causing great loss to agriculture every year in China.....Xie and Zhang first noted that Xie et al. (2008) had already found there was a "significant decreasing trend of hail frequency in most of China from the early 1980s based on 46 years of data during 1960-2005." So for this vast country, they began with the knowledge that one of two types of potential hail extremeness (hailstorm frequency) had not lived up to climate-alarmist hype. Therefore, the two researchers focused on the other type of extremeness (hailstone size), noting that "changes in hail size are also an important aspect of hail climatology,".....Xie and Zhang report that their work revealed an uptrend in maximum hail diameter in Hebei, a flat trend in XUAR, and a slight downtrend in both Guizhou and IMAR; but they add that "none of the trends is statistically significant.".....In fact, the data suggest there was a slight decline in the frequency of such storms, along with a hint of a possible decrease in maximum hail diameter..." [Xie, B. and Zhang, Q. 2010]
Read here. As most will remember, Duke University's academic community and administration supported a fact-challenged accusation of its lacrosse team members regarding a reported rape crime, which ultimately was proven to be totally bogus. It would seem the Duke faculty is quick to accuse if it is politically convenient and correct. Apparently this proclivity also hold trues for their "climate scientists."
A new study by Duke "scientists" claims summer rainfall, within the Southeast region of the U.S., has become more variable due to global warming, the grant-funded scientist's favorite boogieman. Unfortunately for these Duke scientists, again the evidence does not support their politically correct hypothesis (accusation?). (click on image to enlarge)
As NASA data indicates, "global warming" has been pretty sparse over the last decade, especially in the U.S. and the Southeast region. In fact, the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) reports the Southeast region has experienced slight global cooling since 1895 through September, 2010.
As far as summer rainfall claim by Duke "scientists"? The above NCDC data clearly shows that summer rainfall has always been highly variable. As the 10-year average (red curve) shows, recent Southeast summer rainfall levels are not unusual nor unprecedented. In addition, as the chart reveals, atmospheric CO2 greenhouse gas levels (black dots) seemingly have no impact on summer rainfall.
Read here. The IPCC and other global warming alarmists have claimed that snowpacks of mountainous areas are declining. Actual scientists decided to investigate this claim to determine if it was based on factual evidence or based on hypothetical speculation.
Per peer-reviewed research conducted by Chinese scientists, they analyzed an area of Tibet and discovered that snowpack levels over the past 100 years reveal no significant trends and the levels are quite variable. The most recent levels indicate snowpack is well above previous lows of earlier decades of the 20th century. Another IPCC prediction proven wrong. (click on image to enlarge)
"“The most notable features of the reconstruction are the higher snow accumulation around 1990. The reconstruction also shows that the Gongga Mountain experienced some lower snow-depth episodes during 1910s, 1930s, 1950–1980, and later 1990s. The higher snow-depth intervals occurred during 1910s, 1940s, and the period around 1990 with the highest values during past 100 years. We defined extreme snowpack depth years as those years with values more than one standard deviation (plus or minus) from the average. Although there are several clusters of extreme years over the past century, the century is notable for the long period of snow-depth variations in a normal way except the higher snowpack depth values around 1990.”.....So, what we get here is a classic case of an apparent decline in snowpack from the late-1980s to the near-present, and someone might be tempted to suggest the decline is related to global warming. The Chinese scientists figured a way to reconstruct snowpack going back over 100 years, and that time series shows no evidence whatsoever of any downward trend (in fact, there appears to be a slight upward trend in the data)."
Read here. Researchers using lake sediment cores determine that severe weather for the northeastern United States has followed a cyclical pattern with a 3,000 year gap between each peak. The latest severe weather period began some 600 years ago with onset of the Little Ice Age. The major forces driving this natural cycle are thought to be solar changes, along with changes in the Atlantic Oscillation (AO).
Atmospheric CO2 levels are not even considered to be an influence on this natural cycle of storminess.
"The authors' data indicate that "the frequency of storm-related floods in the northeastern United States has varied in regular cycles during the past 13,000 years (13 kyr), with a characteristic period of about 3 kyr." There were four major storminess peaks during this period; they occurred approximately 2.6, 5.8, 9.1 and 11.9 kyr ago, with the most recent upswing in storminess beginning "at about 600 yr BP [Before Present], coincident with the beginning of the Little Ice Age.".....authors say that the pattern they observed "is consistent with long-term changes in the average sign of the Arctic Oscillation [AO], suggesting that modulation of this dominant atmospheric mode may account for a significant fraction of Holocene climate variability in North America and Europe.".....authors also report that "during the past ~600 yr, New England storminess appears to have been increasing naturally," and they suggest that "changes in the AO, perhaps modulated by solar forcing, may explain a significant portion of Holocene climate variability in the North Atlantic region." They further state that their explanation is appealing "because it makes a specific prediction that New England storminess should be at its greatest when Europe is cold (characteristic of the low-phase AO)," such as during Little Ice Age conditions"
Read here. Climate alarmist scientists claim that global warming will unleash weather related natural disasters with a severity the world has never experienced before, and it's already started. This specific type of alarmism is entirely fabricated with no relationship to reality and past experience. Most severe weather events and related natural disasters occur during a climate cooling condition, not warming, as recent Chinese peer-reviewed research shows:
Speaking of the last of the overbank flooding episodes, they note that it "corresponds with the well documented 'Little Ice Age,' during which there were frequent natural disasters including catastrophic floods, droughts, dust storms, heat waves, migratory locusts and frequent famines and plagues in the middle-lower reaches of the Yellow River drainage basin," when "climate departed from its long-term average conditions and was unstable, irregular, and disastrous," which is pretty much like the Little Ice Age has been described in many other parts of the world as well.
Read here. As we have discussed many times before, climate models are basically worthless. The should be banned from any policy making decision process as they have proven to be exceedingly unreliable -their horrendously wrong predictions of snowfall for the Northern Hemisphere is the classic example. (click on image to enlarge)
"While some journalists insist that recent winter snows are proof of global warming effects, they miss the fact that models have been predicting less snow in the northern hemisphere....As we know, winter snow cover has actually increased about 5% since it bottomed in 1989, and is now close to a record maximum....So far, the climate models have the wrong polarity on their predictions of winter snow cover changes."
Read here. Al Gore, James Hansen and other warming publicity seekers like to state that global warming causes more severe weather incidents. Unfortunately for the alarmists, their claims have been proven wrong by the empirical evidence, continuously. Add China to the list, now. Researchers discover hail storms happened less frequently concurrent with global warming increase. (click on image to enlarge)
"...the authors "chose 523 stations with complete observations from 1960 to 2005" to use in their study of "annual variations and trend[s] of hail frequency across mainland China during 1960-2005.""...."As is clearly evident in the following figure, Xie et al. report that the results of their study "show no trend in the mean Annual Hail Days (AHD) from 1960 to [the] early 1980s but a significant decreasing trend afterwards," which latter downturn, we might add, was concomitant with a warming of the globe that the world's climate alarmists claim was unprecedented over the past one to two millennia."
Read here. Global warming alarmist scientists and activists claim that global warming is the cause of wide variety type of severe weather conditions. Fortunately, the alarmist claims have been proven to be severely wrong based on multipleresearchstudies. This is also the case for large, severe dust storms that frequent the northern China region.
"Once again, we have another case of a type of "severe disastrous weather" -- as Zhu et al. describe Chinese duststorms -- being dramatically reduced in response to the historical warming of the globe....authors found a "prominent warming" in recent decades, as well as "an anomalous dipole circulation pattern" in the troposphere that "consists of a warm anti-cyclone centered at 55°N and a cold cyclone centered around 30°N,"....which suppress the frequency of occurrence and the intensity of the Mongolian cyclones and result in the decreasing DSF [dust storm frequency] in North China.""
Read here. Despite recent record snowfalls, the 107 year research study found no trend for either for greater snowfall or lesser snowfalls across the entire U.S. continental area.
"The seven scientists found there were "large decreases in the frequency of low-extreme snowfall years in the west north-central and east north-central United States," but that they were "balanced by large increases in the frequency of low-extreme snowfall years in the Northeast, Southeast and Northwest." All in all, therefore, they determined that "the area-weighted conterminous United States results do not show a statistically significant trend in the occurrence of either high or low snowfall years for the 107-year period."
"Although climate alarmists continue to claim that global warming leads to more extremes (highs and lows) of all types of weather-related phenomena (such as floods and droughts, for example), this study demonstrates that such has not been the case with respect to snowfall averaged over the entire United States throughout the period of time."
Read here. There have been any number of articles, blog postings and statements by leftist/liberal/progressive/socialist elites about how the record snowfalls in the eastern U.S. are the result of global warming induced climate change to make one wonder if the whole left-of-center movement has gone freaking insane. As the vast majority of the public knows, the world and the U.S. have been experiencing a form of global cooling since 2001, not global warming. Yet the "elites" can't seem to understand the reality of what's happening - they've been entirely consumed by the myth of their own creation.
Below, for the leftist "deniers", we offer actual evidence of global cooling that has occurred, as reported by the major climate research centers, the NCDC and UAH. The cooling is widespread, and depending on the region, rather significant. This past cooling of the globe has facilitated the arrival of cooler weather and solid precipitation, commonly referred to as snow, in large amounts. (click image to enlarge)
"But the climate campaign's most ludicrous contortion is its response to the recent record snowfalls across the eastern United States. Ordinary citizens, repeatedly shoveling snow from their sidewalk, see global warming as a farce....In answer, the climate campaigners note that "weather is not climate" and that localized weather events are consistent with climate "change." They may be right -- yet these are the same folks who jumped up and down claiming that Hurricane Katrina was positive proof that catastrophic global warming had arrived, even though the strong 2005 hurricane season was followed by four quiet years for tropical storms that made a hash of that narrative."
"The ruckus exposes the greatest problem of Al Gore & Co.: They've pointed to any weather anomaly -- cold winters, warm winters, in-between winters -- as proof of climate change. That is, they can't name one weather pattern or event that would be inconsistent with their theory....The citizenry seems to prefer common sense -- opinion surveys show declining public belief in global warming."
Read here. As everyone knows by now, Obama and his alarmist supporters will blame very single weather event on global warming induced climate change, even if it's weather incidents due to normal variability from changing ocean and atmospheric oscillations. Unfortunately for U.S. citizens, the president continues to reveal his shallow knowledge of science and climate, or an addiction to lying.
As is well established in climate science, a greater frequency of extreme weather events is more closely associated with global cooling climate conditions, such as during the Little Ice Age. Secondly, the severe weather trend over the last few decades has declined, providing actual evidence refuting the ignorant alarmist claims.
Case in point is the frequency of catastrophic Mediterranean storms on the southern coast of France. Per the researchers:
"Sedimentological and paleoecological results allow us to identify the most powerful storm events as historical period (i.e. paleostorm) with the presence of sand layer (50–150 μm) together with marine species (B. reticulatum) and the disappearance of lagoonal species. Based on our age model the last three catastrophic storm events recorded in this cores-transect occurred in 1742, 1839, and 1893.” "....the most severe storms all occurred before 1900, and long before the buildup of greenhouse gases."
The catastrophic storms happened during or close to the Little Ice Age, not during the "global warming" scare-mongering period of the last two decades.
Read here and here. Global warming research has become a literal travesty. Mainstream reporting on the science is even worse. The research and reporting on the California "fog issue" is the classic flip-flop hilarity we've come to expect, as noted in the two linked postings.
Anything, and all, is attributed to human-caused global warming by pro-warming scientists and their lapdogs in the mainstream press. The best advice to the public is to remain totally skeptical of all research studies that make a prediction or claim resulting from a supposed climate change, and to read daily sites like this and this. Why?
There is a high probability that any "warming" or "change" study is wrong, and is only a result of government and/or environmental activist groups funding (paying off) scientists to make bogus global warming claims - it's as simple as that. And, one won't get the truth from the likes of the NY Times, the AP, CBS and etc.
Special Note: Liberal/Leftists believing the global warming scam must have their heads doing a perpetual Exorcist-spin.
Read here. More here. Why has American journalism become a laughingstock? Why are traditional U.S. media outlets now a failing business proposition? Are individuals who pursue journalism careers just inherently dumber? Or, does it have anything to do with the political agenda the MSM is devoted to pushing, despite how stupid it sounds and how scientifically wrong it is? Let one of the world's top physicists articulate:
"When you look at his article carefully, you will see that there are no
valid arguments, and those that are presented as arguments are
completely wrong. So the proposition about "warming causing stronger
snowing" is as wrong as you should have expected from the beginning.
Warming obviously means less snow precipitation. I have estimated that
a 1.5 °C warming in Prague would reduce snow roughly by 20 percent: such a change could occur in 100 years.
At the end, he realizes that no sane person is going to believe him, so he concedes that he had written just a pile of crap:
"Ultimately, however, it's a mistake to use any one storm —
or even a season's worth of storms — to disprove climate change (or to
prove it; some environmentalists have wrongly tied the lack of snow in
Vancouver, the site of the Winter Olympic Games, which begin this
month, to global warming).""
Read here. Global warming alarmist scientists have claimed (predicted) that atmospheric levels of CO2 drive climatic changes, including changes in rainfall/snowfall. The newest research clearly shows that major natural forces, such as solar cycles, are what determines the varying cycles of precipitation levels.
"Once again we have another real-world example of cyclical solar activity controlling the cyclical nature of precipitation variations, wherein, in the words of the researchers who conducted the study, "higher solar output corresponds to a stronger monsoon, which intensifies the uplift of air mass on the high Tibetan Plateau and strengthens the subsidence of air mass over the Qaidam Basin," while "the reverse is true during the period of lower solar output," so that "high solar activity is correlated with dry climate in the Qaidam Basin and increased precipitation in monsoonal areas.""
Read here. All of a sudden, global warming alarmists are blaming the cold and snowy weather on human CO2-caused global warming. For those who don't appreciate the irony of the previous sentence, it has become a world-wide joke that all, and every, worldly condition is a direct result of human CO2 global warming.
Instead of the 24/7, Oprah & Obama "climate science" of blizzards, read the actual peer-reviewed science of blizzards.
"Based on these observations, it would appear that winter storms in North America at the end of the 20th century matured faster, but dissipated quicker, than they had done four decades earlier. Could this change have been the result of global warming? According to the three researchers, the phenomenon is more likely connected to large-scale features of atmospheric variability, such as the North Atlantic Oscillation and the North Pacific Oscillation. As for the large decrease in the annual number of Northern Hemispheric cyclones over the 42-year period, we note that this observation runs contrary to climate-alarmist predictions, which suggest that the frequency of such events should increase as a result of global warming. Once again, therefore, the predictions of the climate models appear to be diametrically opposed to the testimony of nature."
Read here. As every climate model, every climate alarmist and every single tax-crazed, revenue-loving politician has claimed, global warming would cause increases in severe weather, including a greater frequency of high wind storms. Unfortunately for the global warming "is-a-catastrophe" group-idiocy, they were wrong again, which has been well documented in the past.
"Thus, it was not surprising, as Changnon describes it, that "the fit of a linear trend to the annual [catastrophe number] data showed no upward or downward trend."
Read here. Again proving that alarmist science is based on scientific untruths, speculation and hype, two new studies confirm what objective scientists have actually observed: recent past global warming is not causing an increase on severe storms. One should note, that despite the Copenhagen COP-15 scary predictions from the leftist/liberal advocates, despite the mainstream media pandering to the alarmists, despite the typical non-scientific illiterate despot/tyrant/western leader calling for massive climate reparations, and despite the scientific fraud coming from Climategate endeavors, good, objective science is still being produced that sheds light on the very un-settled science of the climate.
"“The results from this study suggest that natural climate variability will play an important role in future changes in storminess, and thus could overwhelm any anthropogenic signal there might be.” We completely agree, and yet, the popular press continues to suggest that global warming is to blame for anything from few storms to big storms – it is all climate change!"
Read here, starting page 23. We have written multiple times about the failures of climate models. Politicians and the mainstream press are in love with climate models because they can be used to proffer scary "scientific" predictions to influence the public regarding global warming. Climate alarmists scientists find the climate model predictions a convenient way to help them raise additional research funds. As has been well documented though, climate models are absolutely worthless regarding accurate climate predictions.
Below is an example of wildly different predictions of two climate models. These are predictions of rainfall change across 18 regional areas by the year 2090. This is the typical, non-consensus output one sees when comparing "state-of-the-art" climate models. (click on image to enlarge)
Read here. Scientists who advocate human-CO2 caused global warming predicted that African regions, such as the Lake Victoria area, would suffer from reduced precipitation because of the warming. In fact, quite the opposite happened as the Lake Victoria basin had an increase in rainfall overall. As is often the case, climate scientist catastrophic predictions are not based on reality.
Read here. Both climate alarmist scientists and their computer climate models predicted that the climate would suffer from more variability due to human CO2 induced global warming. When coral reef records were analyzed, it was found that recent climate variability had lessened as compared to the period from 1850-1920. Additionally, climate variability appears to be associated with the Pacific Ocean's ENSO cycle, not CO2. Further empirical evidence that the IPCC climate models are incapable of any degree of correctness.
Read here, source data here. IPCC climate models and climate alarmist scientists have claimed global precipitation increases due to global warming. Both satellite data and local rain gauges have proven this prediction to be wrong. More importantly though:
"The study also raises questions on the extent to which water vapor content has increased globally, if the global averaged precipitation has not changed significantly. A positive atmospheric water vapor feedback, in response to an increase in the radiative warming of the well-mixed greenhouse gases, is at the foundation of the IPCC perspective on global warming."
Read here and here. Climate alarmist scientists have spent billions on research regarding low probability, extreme weather events- floods, droughts, cyclones, tornadoes, wildfires, windstorms, and, etc. The number of potential lives saved from this research is a small fraction of yearly deaths from other causes. Did climate alarmist scientists' greed siphon away needed funds from much more important, critical science and practical solutions for solving non-global warming deaths? Will developing countries initiate criminal or legal actions against institutions and/or scientists for the harm done?