Extremes

[Trakar]

Extremes
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Fq8P9RhEpiQ"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Fq8P9RhEpiQ[/ame]
IPCC
Special Report - Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX)
Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation
Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Extreme weather and climate events, interacting with exposed and vulnerable human and natural systems, can lead to disasters. This Special Report explores the challenge of understanding and managing the risks of climate extremes to advance climate change adaptation. Weather- and climate-related disasters have social as well as physical dimensions. As a result, changes in the frequency and severity of the physical events affect disaster risk, but so do the spatially diverse and temporally dynamic patterns of exposure and vulnerability.
Some types of extreme weather and climate events have increased in frequency or magnitude, but populations and assets at risk have also increased, with consequences for disaster risk. Opportunities for managing risks of weather- and climate-related disasters exist or can be developed at any scale, local to international. Some strategies for effectively managing risks and adapting to climate change involve adjustments to current activities. Others require transformation or fundamental change.

 

[SSDD]

Wake up and smell the C8-H10-N4-O2. The sky is not falling.

Interesting that your scary video clip portrays floods in light of this paper recently published in Climate of the Past.

http://www.clim-past.net/9/1193/2013/cp-9-1193-2013.html

It finds that floods are more frequent, and more severe during times of cooling and less frequent and severe during times of warming. Typical. The real world tends to be exactly the opposite of the sewage spewed out by climate models.

 

[Trakar]

Wake up and smell the C8-H10-N4-O2. The sky is not falling.

"sky falling" is your hyperbole, not anything presented in the OP or stated by myself.

Interesting that your scary video clip portrays floods in light of this paper recently published in Climate of the Past.

CP - Abstract - Orbital changes, variation in solar activity and increased anthropogenic activities: controls on the Holocene flood frequency in the Lake Ledro area, Northern Italy

Again, the only thing scary in that video clip is how much in future tax dollars it will take to deal with events already occurring because we refuse to make those earning massive profits from activities that lead to increases in such precipitation events pay to clean up the mess they are earning those profits from.

It finds that floods are more frequent, and more severe during times of cooling and less frequent and severe during times of warming. Typical. The real world tends to be exactly the opposite of the sewage spewed out by climate models.

Not sure where you are getting this interpretation from, but this deals with local event modeling of one small lake region in N. Italy, and the actual abstract you link to says:

...The method was based on colour data extracted from processed core photographs, and the count data were analysed to capture the flood signal. Flood frequency and reconstructed sedimentary dynamics were compared with lake-level changes and pollen inferred vegetation dynamics. The results suggest a record marked by low flood frequency during the early and middle Holocene (10 000–4500 cal BP). Only modest increases during short intervals are recorded at ca. 8000, 7500, and 7100 cal BP. After 4500–4000 cal BP, the record shows a shift toward increased flood frequency. With the exception of two short intervals around 2900–2500 and 1800–1400 cal BP, which show a slightly reduced number of floods, the trend of increasing flood frequency prevailed until the 20th century, reaching a maximum between the 16th and the 19th centuries. Brief-flood frequency increases recorded during the early and middle Holocene can be attributed to cold climatic oscillations. On a centennial time scale, major changes in flood frequency, such as those observed after ca. 4500/4000 and 500 cal BP, can be attributed to large-scale climatic changes such as the Neo-glacial and Little Ice Age, which are under orbital and possibly solar control. However, in the Bronze Age and during the Middle Ages and modern times, forest clearing and land use probably partially control the flood activity.

Which while a bit vague, and utilizing unique and unconfirmed proxies and rather unusual methodological assessments in their speculations, still does not seem to say what you seem to be asserting.

A closer look at the actual paper from which this abstract was extracted reveals even more of interest:

...Today, the annual maximum flooding occurs during autumn from flood-producing storms due to southern air flows driven by the meridional southern circulation patterns. However, spring and summer floods occur before the extreme precipitation

season due to increasing soil moisture from the late spring snow melt, whereas extreme events are more likely to occur as late as November (Parajka et al., 2010). Gaume et al. (2009) also documented a marked seasonality of flash floods and in many parts of the Alpine range, suggesting a mechanism involving extreme storms and southerly circulation patterns that cause warm and moist air to be advected from the Mediterranean Sea. All of these may explain the good correlation observed in Fig. 8 between Alpine summer temperature reconstruction and Lake Ledro’s flood frequency variability. From the MWP into the LIA, the trend toward
higher flood frequency could have resulted from the steepening of the meridional temperature gradient as the Alps cooled more rapidly than the Mediterranean...​

Which seems perfectly in accord with modern models and climate understandings while looking beyond the narrow local event situation and does not seem to support your interpretation and understanding of the paper's findings.

 

[flacaltenn]

Extremes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Fq8P9RhEpiQ
IPCC
Special Report - Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX)
Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation
Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Extreme weather and climate events, interacting with exposed and vulnerable human and natural systems, can lead to disasters. This Special Report explores the challenge of understanding and managing the risks of climate extremes to advance climate change adaptation. Weather- and climate-related disasters have social as well as physical dimensions. As a result, changes in the frequency and severity of the physical events affect disaster risk, but so do the spatially diverse and temporally dynamic patterns of exposure and vulnerability.
Some types of extreme weather and climate events have increased in frequency or magnitude, but populations and assets at risk have also increased, with consequences for disaster risk. Opportunities for managing risks of weather- and climate-related disasters exist or can be developed at any scale, local to international. Some strategies for effectively managing risks and adapting to climate change involve adjustments to current activities. Others require transformation or fundamental change.

Didn't you just tell me that you didn't do "hot and cold, wet and dry, calm and stormy"??

At least you didn't do it in the name of AGW.. You made that clear..

So -- I'm all ready to sign up for remediation.. But first -- what climate change theory are you operating under --- if it's not the old CO2 carp?

And GoldiLocks will put up the crazy lady video in

3...
2....
1....

 

[Trakar]

Didn't you just tell me that you didn't do "hot and cold, wet and dry, calm and stormy"??

At least you didn't do it in the name of AGW.. You made that clear..

I believe the issue at question, in a different recent thread, was whether or not I was claiming that increasingly reduced snow packs in the Rocky Mountains over the last 30 years were mainly due to AGW and that the primary thing we needed to address in order to resolve the problem was AGW. What I replied was that while increasingly reduced mountain snow packs are consistent with AGW, neither the OP I presented nor I in any of that thread's posts had made any claims associating AGW with that thread. That thread was about discussing the reducing snow pack issue and what might be done to address and ameliorate the problems associated with declining mountain snow packs in the Rocky Mountains.

So -- I'm all ready to sign up for remediation.. But first -- what climate change theory are you operating under --- if it's not the old CO2 carp?

Regardless of "why" the climate is warming, or "why" snow packs are decreasing, or "why" storm frequency and intensity are changing, etc., there are some things that can be done to make us, our communities and the natural environments that are dependent upon the impacts of weather and climate better able to deal with these impacts. These actions are remediations.

I have no problem discussing the whys as outlined by the mainstream science understandings, but right now, and for most of the "hot and cold, wet and dry, calm and stormy," etc. threads I am starting currently, I am more than happy to discuss individual events and what can be done to minimize the harm and damages of such events and the costs associated with such efforts.

This thread was more along those lines, demonstrating that the IPCC has already undertaken an ongoing study designed to characterize the nature of these events that are occurring globally and to suggest some of the issues and addressments it has already identified.

 

[skookerasbil]

Wake up and smell the C8-H10-N4-O2. The sky is not falling.

Interesting that your scary video clip portrays floods in light of this paper recently published in Climate of the Past.

CP - Abstract - Orbital changes, variation in solar activity and increased anthropogenic activities: controls on the Holocene flood frequency in the Lake Ledro area, Northern Italy

It finds that floods are more frequent, and more severe during times of cooling and less frequent and severe during times of warming. Typical. The real world tends to be exactly the opposite of the sewage spewed out by climate models.

SS.....are you not amazed that these bozo's keep coming back every day to get flogged? Its fascinating to me......look at the level of pwn you produce here with your post and its a daily occurrence!! And its always the same old angst hysterical house falling out of the sky OCD paranoia!!

Anyway man......awesome post........Im thinking I need to revise my ENVIRONMENT forum scoreboard after that one!!!

 

[flacaltenn]

Didn't you just tell me that you didn't do "hot and cold, wet and dry, calm and stormy"??

At least you didn't do it in the name of AGW.. You made that clear..

I believe the issue at question, in a different recent thread, was whether or not I was claiming that increasingly reduced snow packs in the Rocky Mountains over the last 30 years were mainly due to AGW and that the primary thing we needed to address in order to resolve the problem was AGW. What I replied was that while increasingly reduced mountain snow packs are consistent with AGW, neither the OP I presented nor I in any of that thread's posts had made any claims associating AGW with that thread. That thread was about discussing the reducing snow pack issue and what might be done to address and ameliorate the problems associated with declining mountain snow packs in the Rocky Mountains.

So -- I'm all ready to sign up for remediation.. But first -- what climate change theory are you operating under --- if it's not the old CO2 carp?

Regardless of "why" the climate is warming, or "why" snow packs are decreasing, or "why" storm frequency and intensity are changing, etc., there are some things that can be done to make us, our communities and the natural environments that are dependent upon the impacts of weather and climate better able to deal with these impacts. These actions are remediations.

I have no problem discussing the whys as outlined by the mainstream science understandings, but right now, and for most of the "hot and cold, wet and dry, calm and stormy," etc. threads I am starting currently, I am more than happy to discuss individual events and what can be done to minimize the harm and damages of such events and the costs associated with such efforts.

This thread was more along those lines, demonstrating that the IPCC has already undertaken an ongoing study designed to characterize the nature of these events that are occurring globally and to suggest some of the issues and addressments it has already identified.

I accept NONE of the "addressments" from the UN. Or the "social impact" side of their AGW conferences that turn into a beggar's ball...

Perhaps ADDRESSING climate change WITHOUT the political agenda WOULD be more productive than writing a HUGE check to Palau natives.. Dontcha think??

But to do that -- we need magnitude and trends.. Least we have a N'orleans type of defense against the threats from the climate. Not really into "over-engineering" an entire coastline defense against storm surge. Complete with the "Trail of Tears" as residents are led to their new homesteads farther inland by armed guard. Or moving all our food production indoors. Really DO need a theory of how this is gonna play out.

The odds are --- we will be in another Ice Age cycle in 1,000 yrs if not sooner.. We are at the tail end of an oscillation in and out of Ice Ages. The engineer in me sees only the poles and zeroes of an unstable Linear System. A system behaving like that tends to ring for a long time and gradually dies to a more transient state. That's my theory... At least over the scope of the next 100,000 years...

 

[gslack]

Nice to see edthecynic's old clone is back again.. Ya'll remember edthecynic I'm sure. His rep compared his 2011 join date should be a dead giveaway.

 

[Trakar]

Didn't you just tell me that you didn't do "hot and cold, wet and dry, calm and stormy"??

At least you didn't do it in the name of AGW.. You made that clear..

I believe the issue at question, in a different recent thread, was whether or not I was claiming that increasingly reduced snow packs in the Rocky Mountains over the last 30 years were mainly due to AGW and that the primary thing we needed to address in order to resolve the problem was AGW. What I replied was that while increasingly reduced mountain snow packs are consistent with AGW, neither the OP I presented nor I in any of that thread's posts had made any claims associating AGW with that thread. That thread was about discussing the reducing snow pack issue and what might be done to address and ameliorate the problems associated with declining mountain snow packs in the Rocky Mountains.

So -- I'm all ready to sign up for remediation.. But first -- what climate change theory are you operating under --- if it's not the old CO2 carp?

Regardless of "why" the climate is warming, or "why" snow packs are decreasing, or "why" storm frequency and intensity are changing, etc., there are some things that can be done to make us, our communities and the natural environments that are dependent upon the impacts of weather and climate better able to deal with these impacts. These actions are remediations.

I have no problem discussing the whys as outlined by the mainstream science understandings, but right now, and for most of the "hot and cold, wet and dry, calm and stormy," etc. threads I am starting currently, I am more than happy to discuss individual events and what can be done to minimize the harm and damages of such events and the costs associated with such efforts.

This thread was more along those lines, demonstrating that the IPCC has already undertaken an ongoing study designed to characterize the nature of these events that are occurring globally and to suggest some of the issues and addressments it has already identified.

I accept NONE of the "addressments" from the UN. Or the "social impact" side of their AGW conferences that turn into a beggar's ball...

Perhaps ADDRESSING climate change WITHOUT the political agenda WOULD be more productive than writing a HUGE check to Palau natives.. Dontcha think??

But to do that -- we need magnitude and trends.. Least we have a N'orleans type of defense against the threats from the climate. Not really into "over-engineering" an entire coastline defense against storm surge. Complete with the "Trail of Tears" as residents are led to their new homesteads farther inland by armed guard. Or moving all our food production indoors. Really DO need a theory of how this is gonna play out.

The odds are --- we will be in another Ice Age cycle in 1,000 yrs if not sooner.. We are at the tail end of an oscillation in and out of Ice Ages. The engineer in me sees only the poles and zeroes of an unstable Linear System. A system behaving like that tends to ring for a long time and gradually dies to a more transient state. That's my theory... At least over the scope of the next 100,000 years...

Again, your rant is without support, largely incorrect, and completely with relevance to this thread's topic.

 

[SSDD]

Again, your rant is without support, largely incorrect, and completely with relevance to this thread's topic.

As the graphs I provided, which you conveniently ignored show, the premise of your own OP are with out support and largely incorrect. There is no increased frequency of extreme weather events due to climate change.

 

[Old Rocks]

Since NOAA, USGS, and NASA all disagree with you, not to mention Swiss Re and Munich Re, I think your graphs don't represent reality.

 

[skookerasbil]

"Extreme weather" is the latest bomb throwing tactic devised by the warmist crusaders.....as if it didnt exist before 20 years ago!!!

But heres the thing.......the warmist contingent WANTS you angst about the next regular thunderstorm. They want you thinking, "Shit,,,,maybe these guys are right!!!". The weather you are experiencing right now is always the most profound.......and these scammers know it.

But a quick look at extreme weather over the past few hundred years clearly displays that extreme weather is part of nature......always has been.........always will be. In fact, you'll laugh your ass off when you see this list ( the list the climate nutters dont want you seeing!!!). Giant hail......torrential floods......gigantic cyclones........mega-fires.......monster blizards

Chronology of Extreme Weather



Indeed,........these climate hysterics could have existed and thrived in any decade in any century going back to 580AD.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, Steve, you are living in the bore of the shotgun. Over the next decade you will see some real interesting extremes.

 

[SSDD]

Since NOAA, USGS, and NASA all disagree with you, not to mention Swiss Re and Munich Re, I think your graphs don't represent reality.

Maybe you failed to notice that much of the information on the graphs comes from NOAA. The people who tell you what to think have steered you away from reality.

 

[SSDD]

Well, Steve, you are living in the bore of the shotgun. Over the next decade you will see some real interesting extremes.

Point out something...any weather at all that is unprecedented.

The shotgun bore exists only in your festered imagination. How long before you open your eyes and see that your threats and warnings are meaningless babble that have no relation to the real world?

 

[Moonglow]

Just be glad the weather is not like when the Earth experienced real extreme weather.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, Steve, you are living in the bore of the shotgun. Over the next decade you will see some real interesting extremes.

Point out something...any weather at all that is unprecedented.

The shotgun bore exists only in your festered imagination. How long before you open your eyes and see that your threats and warnings are meaningless babble that have no relation to the real world?

LOL. Thus far, in stating an immenant danger, I am two for two with Steve. You see, the warming of the gulf stream and the parking of the blocking highs at Greenland is beginning to look like a pattern.

 

[whitehall]

First you re-define the word "extreme" as in extreme weather and then you get to call everything extreme. How many times do you hear "the worst weather in ten years or twenty" or "it beats a record set way back in the 1990's"? It's pop-weather and ties in with a saying by a high profile democrat, "never let a crisis go to waste".

 

[Old Rocks]

Ask any farmer what extreme weather is. People who are outside much of the time, whether for work or recreation understand the definition of extreme weather.

 

[flacaltenn]

Ask any farmer what extreme weather is. People who are outside much of the time, whether for work or recreation understand the definition of extreme weather.

It's only a science if you have some shot at telling us WHEN and HOW MUCH the shifts are gonna be.. NONE of the top Hysteria Mongers is that naive..

You take that ONE DEGREE FAHRENHEIT mean shift and calculate it's effect on thunderstorm formation for instance. And then you look to VERIFY your hypothesis.. Is that TOO HARD for your heroes to do?? (already partly known from the AMO type shifts and storms)

To prove HANSEN correct --- on this Mean-Shift of variance bulldozer, you have to wait for a valid period of time and determine that the VARIANCE (or extremes) have gotten larger.. THat means LESS hurricanes in a season as well as MORE.

Read that last paragraph closely GoldiRocks..... Cause this is why we (I particularly) make fun of your Chicken Little dance You come out here EVERYTIME there is WHAT YOU consider extreme. You should be posting here for seasons when few hurricanes form and NO DESTRUCTION occurs or when the Mississippi DOESN"T flood or Tennessee has the COLDEST spring temp on record.. But instead you choose EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO LINK Global Weirding with money and the social impact and the CO2 theory of Warming. Just like the media and the politicians have been doing.

If this is what occurs when the climate warms -- we'll deal with that.. It really has NOTHING to do with the theories about WHY it's warming.. Now does it?