New Climate Central writer tries to connect climate and extreme weather with love of bigger destructive storms

Oh, they KNOW better.
But they’re activists. It’s about what will SELL, and they’ve decided this is what will sell to the low-information citizen.
They’re dishonest to the core, and all we can really hope is for a major schism in the warmist community over this sort of misconduct.

Maybe she can also help out by choosing cute storm names for the entertainment-oriented “Weather Channel” (which was formerly a popular and well-regarded public information cable channel and website for the weather).

Fascination at the raw power of our atmosphere is nothing to be ashamed of. “Weather weenies” don’t get drawn into Meteorology because each day is clear and 85. Regardless of any other point in the article, a person expressing a desire to observe weather extremes is not the same as one wishing to see people hurt or killed. Not even close. Highlighting (and then expounding on) that unfounded conclusion is misguided at best.

“There’s so much misinformation out there, that this company started in an effort to try and get good information to the public,” she said.”They are trying to connect climate with extreme weather, because that’s a lot of what’s happening. That’s really exciting for me, because I do love the science.”

This is GREAT! Now she can read the following “science” and let me know if it “misinformation”?

Abstract – 2012
Persistent non-solar forcing of Holocene storm dynamics in coastal sedimentary archives
“We find that high storm activity occurred periodically with a frequency of about 1,500 years, closely related to cold and windy periods diagnosed earlier”
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1619.html#ref1

Conclusion – 2011
Long-term properties of annual maximum daily river discharge worldwide
Analysis of trends and of aggregated time series on climatic (30-year) scale does not indicate consistent trends worldwide. Despite common perception, in general, the detected trends are more negative (less intense floods in most recent years) than positive. Similarly, Svensson et al. (2005) and Di Baldassarre et al. (2010) did not find systematical change neither in flood increasing or decreasing numbers nor change in flood magnitudes in their analysis.
http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1128/2/documents/2011EGU_DailyDischargeMaxima_Pres.pdf

Abstract – 2011
Fluctuations in some climate parameters
There is argument as to the extent to which there has been an increase over the past few decades in the frequency of the extremes of climatic parameters, such as temperature, storminess, precipitation, etc, an obvious point being that Global Warming might be responsible. Here we report results on those parameters of which we have had experience during the last few years: Global surface temperature, Cloud Cover and the MODIS Liquid Cloud Fraction. In no case we have found indications that fluctuations of these parameters have increased with time.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2011.01.021

Abstract – 2011
The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project
It is anticipated that the 20CR dataset will be a valuable resource to the climate research community for both model validations and diagnostic studies. Some surprising results are already evident. For instance, the long-term trends of indices representing the North Atlantic Oscillation, the tropical Pacific Walker Circulation, and the Pacific–North American pattern are weak or non-existent over the full period of record. The long-term trends of zonally averaged precipitation minus evaporation also differ in character from those in climate model simulations of the twentieth century.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.776/full

Abstract – 2012
Changes in the variability of global land precipitation
We report a near-zero temporal trend in global mean P. Unexpectedly we found a reduction in global land P variance over space and time that was due to a redistribution, where, on average, the dry became wetter while wet became drier.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL053369.shtml

observations and perceptions are the key. She needs to read about the bad weather of the past and realise she’s still wet behind the ears.

Since it would appear that she graduated from PSU no later than 2004, and Mann started there in 2005, I fail to see how she could have been his student.
REPLY: The word I had was that Mann started in 2004. I note none of the other issues bother you though, which is par for the course for your “anything goes” view of climate science on display here. – Anthony

BS in meteorology? I’ll say. 😉

“There’s so much misinformation out there, that this company started in an effort to try and get good information to the public,” she said.

So she will be promoting WUWT. Good. Just make sure she gives proper credit.
/sarc

A BS is meterology? The folks I know are either MS or Ph.Ds. And none of them believe in AGW. The only thing they stipulate is the CO2 level in the atmosphere.
The Ph.D. does numerical modeling for a USAF contractor. Last time I talked with him he said the models still do not have the “resolution” to draw any definitive conclusions about anything that drives Earth’s climate. In short, he says, they still don’t know enough about the Earth-ocean-atmosphere interactions to say much of anything.

The Bastardi’s are close friends with Bernie, she went to school here, was a gymnast that my wife coached and is a fine meteorologist. I suspect they need a polished TV person and they went to her. I do not believe Dr Mann was a teacher here when Bernie was in school, so I dont think that should be brought into the mix. Even if he was, I dont ever recall Bernie even mentioning Dr Mann once. While saddened by all this, lets make sure we all try our best to make sure she, and many like her, are exposed to the overwhelming evidence that counters all this nonsense, and not try to pile on with accusations that may not be true, or have nothing to do with it
Thanks