Explaining Extreme Events Of 2014

By Paul Homewood

https://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/explaining-extreme-events-from-a-climate-perspective/

In their annual attempt to convince us that global warming is causing extreme weather, the AMS, with the help of the Met Office’s Peter Stott, has published the latest propaganda.

There is no mention, of course, of all the extreme weather events which did not happen last year, such as another quiet Atlantic hurricane season, lack of tornadoes, not to mention all of the places which did not flood or have droughts. Or that some of these occurrences may have been due to global warming.

It is important to realise that all of these case studies are reliant solely on “models”, and therefore need to be taken with a large pinch of salt.

I will look at some of the studies in another post, but first it is worth looking at some of the weather events that they could not blame on global warming:

The reduced daily temperature variability should not come as any surprise, although it destroys the “extreme temperature” myth.

The summary links this to a reduction in the polar-equator temperature gradient.

————————————————————

What “global warming hiatus”? Didn’t they get the memo?

————————————————————

This was, of course, Slingo’s favoured explanation. In any event, there is absolutely no evidence that the warming in the Pacific was “anthropgenic-induced”, as there is no known mechanism as to how GHG can warm parts of the ocean in isolation from others.

They conclude:

————————————————————

It was nature wot done it! (Of course, if they had bothered looking at 1929/30 they would have found exactly the same sort of conditions, which led to even wetter weather, and for four months and not three).

But contrast their conclusions about the shorter duration extremes,

Figures 10.2b,d,f illustrate the effect of human influence on extreme rainfall for synoptic conditions similar to 2013/14. The ALL and NAT (highcorrelation) ensembles are not distinguishable for both DJF and R10x based on Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests (p values greater than 0.2). However, a minor (not statistically significant) shift to wetter conditions

due to anthropogenic forcings is identified for R10x, translating to an increase in the chances of getting an extreme event by a factor of about seven.

[R10x is defined as an index for shorter events (R10x), defined as the wettest period during the year over 10 consecutive winter days]

with the Met Office news bulletin on the AMS Report,

The first shows a link between global warming and the exceptional UK rainfall of the winter 2013/14. It found that, under the same weather pattern (a persistent westerly flow), extreme rainfall over 10 consecutive winter days is now seven times more likely than in a world without man-made greenhouse gas emissions. This is in line with initial Met Office research which we published in February 2014.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/release/archive/2015/BAMS-report

So the report finds only a minor, not statistically significant shift to wetter conditions for 10-day extremes. But the Met Office blatantly misrepresent this, giving the false impression that such events are now much more likely. This is breathtakingly dishonest.

————————————————————————–

Rather puts to bed all of those “melting candle” theories!