Precipitation and global warming

[Midnight Marauder]

The increase in the ocean temps will cause humidity to rise causing more precip including more rain and more snow.

We saw that this winter.

But... In March 2000 the meter was "Snow will be a rare and exciting event. Children in 10 years won't know what snow is." -- David Viner, the Climate Research Unit, University of East Angelia.

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent

Yeah, we're supposed to just mindlessly and slavishly keep believing them. __________________

 

[Old Rocks]

In 2000 you and Limpbaugh were still saying that there was no global warming at all.

 

[westwall]

And the study does not include the events of 2010, and this January.

Human contribution to more-intense precipitation extremes : Nature : Nature Publishing Group

Extremes of weather and climate can have devastating effects on human society and the environment1, 2. Understanding past changes in the characteristics of such events, including recent increases in the intensity of heavy precipitation events over a large part of the Northern Hemisphere land area3, 4, 5, is critical for reliable projections of future changes. Given that atmospheric water-holding capacity is expected to increase roughly exponentially with temperature—and that atmospheric water content is increasing in accord with this theoretical expectation6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11—it has been suggested that human-influenced global warming may be partly responsible for increases in heavy precipitation3, 5, 7. Because of the limited availability of daily observations, however, most previous studies have examined only the potential detectability of changes in extreme precipitation through model–model comparisons12, 13, 14, 15. Here we show that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases have contributed to the observed intensification of heavy precipitation events found over approximately two-thirds of data-covered parts of Northern Hemisphere land areas. These results are based on a comparison of observed and multi-model simulated changes in extreme precipitation over the latter half of the twentieth century analysed with an optimal fingerprinting technique. Changes in extreme precipitation projected by models, and thus the impacts of future changes in extreme precipitation, may be underestimated because models seem to underestimate the observed increase in heavy precipitation with warming16.

The increase in the ocean temps will cause humidity to rise causing more precip including more rain and more snow.

We saw that this winter.

Except that can't possibly be true because water vapor only has a nine day residence time. So how exactly does all that extra water hang around for months till the temperature drops?

 

[Old Rocks]

My, my, Walleyes just says dumber things every day

 

[westwall]

My, my, Walleyes just says dumber things every day

Really? When we point out how much more important a GHG water vapour is you clowns go to great pains to tell us how it can't be because it only has a RT of nine days whereas according to non scientists CO2 has a RT of 200 years. Of course CO2's RT has been proven to be 15 years or less, but the fact remains according to you water vapors RT of 9 days means it's much less important than CO2 according to you. And, now here, yet again, you clowns want it both ways, you want warmth to be proof of your GWCCGCD, you want cold to be proof of your GWCCGCD, you want lack of snow to be proof of your GWCCGCD, you want abundance of snow to be proof of your GWCCGCD, in point of fact you want all things to be proof of your failed theory. That's why it's a failed theory.


But nice try anyway, those with cognative issues will flock to you while those who can think for themselves are abandoning you in droves.

 

[IanC]

Old Rocks- that paper seems to be full of the usual mishandling of data, use of inappropriate statistical tools, and unsubstantiated claims.

OVERALL CONCLUSIONS

1. They have neglected the uncertainties from:

• the bad individual records in the original data

• the homogenization of the original data

• the averaging into gridcells

• the incorrect assumption of increasing correlation with decreasing distance

• the use of a 3 parameter fitted different probability function for each gridcell

• the use of a PI average on top of a weighted raw data average

• the use of non-Gaussian data for an “optimal fingerprint” analysis

• the conversion of the model results to the HADEX grid

• the selection of the models

As a result, we do not know if their findings are significant or not … but given the number of sources of uncertainty and the fact that their results were marginal to begin with, I would say no way. In any case, until those questions are addressed, the paper should not have been published, and the results cannot be relied upon.

Nature Unleashes a Flood … of Bad Science. | Watts Up With That?


why do these alarmist papers always have so many problems?

 

[westwall]

Old Rocks- that paper seems to be full of the usual mishandling of data, use of inappropriate statistical tools, and unsubstantiated claims.

OVERALL CONCLUSIONS

1. They have neglected the uncertainties from:

• the bad individual records in the original data

• the homogenization of the original data

• the averaging into gridcells

• the incorrect assumption of increasing correlation with decreasing distance

• the use of a 3 parameter fitted different probability function for each gridcell

• the use of a PI average on top of a weighted raw data average

• the use of non-Gaussian data for an “optimal fingerprint” analysis

• the conversion of the model results to the HADEX grid

• the selection of the models

As a result, we do not know if their findings are significant or not … but given the number of sources of uncertainty and the fact that their results were marginal to begin with, I would say no way. In any case, until those questions are addressed, the paper should not have been published, and the results cannot be relied upon.

Nature Unleashes a Flood … of Bad Science. | Watts Up With That?


why do these alarmist papers always have so many problems?

Because these so called real scientists don't know how, or care, to do proper science.

 

[AmericanFirst]

This past years we have seen a number of weather events cause large losses of life. We must do something before everything is too late..

Sounds like a scifi moveie, manmade weather has to be stopped by man. NO SUCH THING AS MAN CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE OR GLOBAL WARMING, PERIOD.

 

[AmericanFirst]

But... In March 2000 the meter was "Snow will be a rare and exciting event. Children in 10 years won't know what snow is." -- David Viner, the Climate Research Unit, University of East Angelia.

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent

Yeah, we're supposed to just mindlessly and slavishly keep believing them.

Back when I was in school, graduated in 1978, we were to be in a ice age by 1984. The climate changes all the time. Scientists can't explain it so they make up all these theories, yes, all they are are theories.

 

[IanC]

But... In March 2000 the meter was "Snow will be a rare and exciting event. Children in 10 years won't know what snow is." -- David Viner, the Climate Research Unit, University of East Angelia.

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent

Yeah, we're supposed to just mindlessly and slavishly keep believing them.

Back when I was in school, graduated in 1978, we were to be in a ice age by 1984. The climate changes all the time. Scientists can't explain it so they make up all these theories, yes, all they are are theories.

theories are explanations of the mechanics, backed by data. most of these crazy weather ideas are only hypothesis, launched by biased thinking focusing on CO2