http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/01/climate-warming-scientists-too-quick-to-blame-2008-us-floods-on-global-warming-climate-scientist-cre.html

You say,

“I find it interesting, though, that you’re actually a “certified” meteorologist. Where you got your certification remains unknown but my guess is that it wasn’t from a top research institution (or top anything, for that matter).”

My meteorology (including courses in climatology) education came from the University of Oklahoma. My certified consulting meteorologist (CCM) status can easily be verified by going to the American Meteorological Society’s web site: http://ametsoc.org/memb/ccm/ccmhome.html

In order to become a CCM (in the early 80′s when I achieved certification), one must have had at least a bachelor’s degree in meteorology, five years or more of experience in applied meteorology, character references, pass an open book examination in applied meteorology, write a meteorological paper, pass a closed book meteorology test and pass an oral examination by the CCM board. After all of that, your name was published and anyone had 90 days to object to your certification as a consulting meteorologist. I hold CCM certificate #364.

You can verify that I am a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society here: http://www.ametsoc.org/memdir/fellowslist/get_listoffellows.cfm . The AMS states, “Article III, Section 6, of the AMS Constitution provides that those eligible for election to Fellow shall have made outstanding contributions to the atmospheric or related oceanic or hydrologic sciences or their applications during a substantial period of years.”

I have been honored with the Society’s Award for Outstanding Contribution to the Advance of Applied Meteorology, which can be seen here: http://www.ametsoc.org/awards/index.html#past .

Shelley, you add, “I think your underlying knowledge of weather and climate is not up to snuff. But that’s just what my “liberal education” is telling me.”
I obviously cannot speak to your ‘liberal education’ because you don’t post under your full name so I do not know what your background might be. That said, the scientific point you make about the 2008 Midwest floods does not apply. You say, “In relation to what you’re talking about… there is good evidence which shows the Midwest has experienced (over the last 100 years) an OVERALL increase in precipitation along with an overall increase in temperature. Furthermore, there has been an increase in 1-day rainfall events that equaled or exceeded 2 inches.”

This is not what I was talking about at all. Certain agencies (including NOAA, which should know better) were attributing this particular flood to global warming. My piece debunked that. I made no comment, one way or another, regarding the climatology of heavy rainfalls in the Midwest.

Global warming is somewhat of a misnomer. The average GLOBAL temperature is expected to increase by a degree or two (ºC) in the next century. However, not every place on the planet is going to experience warming. The term conservatives like to use, “global climate change” is better suited.

In relation to what you’re talking about… there is good evidence which shows the Midwest has experienced (over the last 100 years) an OVERALL increase in precipitation along with an overall increase in temperature. Furthermore, there has been an increase in 1-day rainfall events that equaled or exceeded 2 inches. Yes, there are areas that have experienced a decrease of these extreme rainfall events but again, the overall trend is increasing.

I would explain more but unfortunately I have my own research to do (which is the reason I stumbled upon this post in the first place). Cop-out? Sure, you can call it that, but I think your underlying knowledge of weather and climate is not up to snuff. But that’s just what my “liberal education” is telling me.

I’m sure you are well-intended but I URGE you to read this summary of what the report actually says: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001462what_the_ccsp_extrem.html#comments .

The report’s science is nothing like the press release or the press coverage.

Now, go look at the temperature graphs posted nearby. Again, I will say referring to the present time: “What warming”?

Mike Smith

“I guess computer models aren’t to be trusted in your world.”

Sure they are, its just GCMs (Global Climate Models) that we don’t trust. Show me one that handles clouds well and it might be worth paying attention to. It would help if models were initialized with real weather data so they’d have a believable starting point, though that’s a bit of a cheap shot, I’m sure you’d agree. And of course, the controversy about the climate forcing ratio GCMs use needs much more study.

“Well my friend let’s just see what the next ten years has in store for the good ol’ U.S. of A. Talk to me ten years from now when crops have failed and massive storms have devastated the country. You can observe that.”

A lot of people here fear exactly that. Some think we’re heading into a repeat of the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age that went along with it. I hope you’re watching for sunspots as much as we are. The solar minimum is 1 or 2 years overdue and every month makes more people here wonder “Is the Sun dead?”

It’s not just a USA problem – we have only 3% or so of the Earth’s surface, so the planet as a whole has about 33X our problems. overall, we’re much worse prepared for global cooling than resumed warming.

Spend some time here reading, you really need to learn more about the big picture and this is about the best place in the English speaking world to learn.

“The number of F2-F5 tornados has not followed predictions of increases either, though we have better reporting.” But hasn’t this year been one of the worst for tornadoes?

Sure, ONE of the worst, not necessarily THE worst. So nothing unprecedented has occurred. When was the last one? Right around the last PDO shift in the mid-late 70s. So, it would seem the temperature differences meeting in the middle of the country are what cause these supercell storms, and not global warming. They’ll happen when it’s cool just as they will when it’s warm.

Also, we’ve been keeping track of these things an extremely short time, and can detect them better now than even 20 years ago. I’d bet, but can’t prove, that there were worse outbreaks that no one ever saw, before there were methods to detect them without being there.

So Jeff I suppose that predictions by NOAA, which can’t be verified by “observational proof” (because they are predictions of the future) don’t hold any water with you? I guess computer models aren’t to be trusted in your world. Well my friend let’s just see what the next ten years has in store for the good ol’ U.S. of A. Talk to me ten years from now when crops have failed and massive storms have devastated the country. You can observe that.

Norm, they’ve been making the same predictions for 30 years now, and none of it has come to pass. So no, they don’t hold any water with me. It’s like the Doomsday predictors. Their predictions fail, so they make up new ones. Oddly, they can’t provide anything solid, it’s always a nebulous “likely”, “may”, “could”, etc, ad nauseum.

The models aren’t to be trusted as predictive devices, period. They can be used to test hypotheses, but should never be used as a valid source of data, since there’s no way the climate can be accurately modeled with the knowledge we currently have. For the same reason an aircraft manufacturer wouldn’t fly a plane without wind tunnel testing first, as opposed to simply relying on aerodynamic modeling programs.

How about this, Norm. Pretend we’re ten years ago and you had said the above. No net waming during that time. Unpredictable hurricanes seasons (abnormally low), now a cold snap across much of the NH. Would you still expect me to keep waiting for something that clearly isn’t happening? Sorry, I have a brain.

“Last season was a strange one, if it hadn’t been for the high wind shear could have been devastating (two catagory 5 made landfall, umprecedented,and one became a hurricane from a tropical depression in 24 hours,again unprecedented.)”

And a bunch of storms made it up to hurricane status for just a day and faded away. Don’t forget that some of last year’s “problems” were due to Saharan dust. Sun would warm the air, not the ocean, so SSTs were depressed and the atmosphere more stable. I don’t know if that’s repeating this year. Atlantic hurricanes are an awful, awful thing to try to correlate with global warming. The big increase starting with 1995 has much more in common with busy periods in the 1950s and 1930s. It will be interesting to see what happens now that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has flipped negative. That will bring more La Ninas, and those tend to have less windshear.

” “The number of F2-F5 tornados has not followed predictions of increases either, though we have better reporting.” But hasn’t this year been one of the worst for tornadoes?”

Yes, but it’s not like 1974, is it? A Google search for tornado 1974 reports over two million pages. 1974 was during the last negative PDO phase, so it’s not too surprising that this year has a lot of tornadoes.

Do you remember the winter of 75/76 when the Ohio River froze and coal barges couldn’t deliver coal to Ohio power stations? Industry and schools shutdown for a couple weeks, although Amish schools stayed open. How about Boston harbor freezing over? That hasn’t happened recently.

Anthony, I don’t agree that there is no link between tropicalstorm intensity and global warming, increased temperatures would also increase wind (which also cools SST). This wind shear can ‘kill’ off hurricanes before they get started as happened a few times last year.

Well, then, simply provide some scientific proof of observed warming causing more and powerful hurricanes and you’ll be a rich man. So far the evidence hasn’t materialized, except in computer models.