Stop talking right now about the threat of climate change. Its here; its happening

The IPCC says the exact same thing I just posted on the US National level.

Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950. Some of these changes have been linked to human influences, including a decrease in cold temperature extremes, an increase in warm temperature extremes, an increase in extreme high sea levels and an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events in a number of regions.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

 

Come'on man. Read what you post. Regional weather is not related to global warming.

 

Yes, this is a statement about climate because it encompasses a long period of time and considers extreme events in aggregate instead of individually. It's hard to quantify how much can be pinned on AGW though. A lot of the increase in precipitation has been pinned on other causes like an explosion of agriculture productivity post WWII especially in the midwest. The irony here is that this is an anthroprogenic forced change, but it's not due to greenhouse gases and global warming. I'm sure some of the precipitation increase is due to AGW, but it's certainly not 100%.

 

Good. I hear about draught all the time. This should fix those problems.

 

Oh, I see. So it was just an everyday weather discussion by the IPCC? "We'll have to work inside today - it's raining."

 

I see. So I produce a link to the National Climate Assessment and the IPCC AR5. But you know better than all these experts? And we should just all take you at your word. Are am I to assume that you are going to provide a link?

Secondly, this is not about an "increase in precipitation". It's about an increase in extreme precipitation events. Capiche?

 

"draught" is a type of beer. I assume you mean "drought"? If there are extreme precipitation events, but roughly the same amount of annual rainfall, it follows that droughts would also be on the rise.

 

That's correct. It is a statement about regional weather patterns. In CA we had a drought for ~ 8 years but came out of it in 2016. That's a short term regional weather pattern which has nothing to do with global warming.

 

How do you arrive at that conclusion ??

 

I just want to know what portion of the current conditions are natural and what percentage is man made. All.this science is so rock solid that this should be a simple question to answer.

 

25.6 % is manmade as of 5:28pm on 9/19/2017.
72.2 % is natural variation of solar input.
0.4 % is the result of whale flatulence.
The remainder is a combination of Bovine excrement and hot air spewed by idiots.

 

That's the million dollar question. We don't really know. I mean we know it's significant, but I've not seen a percentage that's generally agreed upon by the experts. Even AGW skeptics like Judith Curry acknowledge that anthroprogenic causes are in play.

 

I'm not claiming those sources are wrong. I'm just questioning how much of the extreme precipitation events can be pinned on greenhouse gases. And I don't mean that in a challenging sense. I mean I'm genuinely curious as to how much is caused by GHGs and how much is caused by other factors.

For example, in the academic community it's generally agreed that soy and corn crops increase humidity, suppress daily high temperatures, and lead to higher occurrences of heavy precipitation events in the corn belt. Actually, this isn't even really debated anymore. It's taken as a given. If you monitor the Twitter or Facebook pages of the National Weather Service in Des Moines, Lincoln, Omaha, etc they frequently talk about how crops are effecting the weather. The most common topic is that of "corn sweat" which is responsible for an increase in precipitation and humidity and is also known to suppress or "mask" the temperature increase caused by AGW. Modeling shows that the corn belt will slowly creep northward into Canada to maintain current productivity levels. As a result many places in the midwest may return to a more arid (or least less moist) climate which will "unmask" AGW's effects there. I guess what I'm trying to say is that in the United States (at least in some areas) other human activities are in play and are actually masking dry-bulb temperature rises which makes great fodder for AGW skeptics. However, if you look at theta-e temperatures the warming pops out quite clearly.

Climatology and Trends of U.S. Surface Humidity and Temperature, Gaffen
Effects of Land Use on the Climate of the United States, Bonan
Interactions between the atmosphere and terrestrial ecosystems: influence on weather and climate
Temporal trends in United States dew point temperatures, Robinson
A Central U.S. summer extreme dew-point climatology, Sandstrom
Changes in the frequency of extreme warm-season surface dew points in northeastern Illinois: Implications for cooling-system design and operation, Sparks
Evidence that local land use practices influence regional climate, vegetation, and stream flow patterns in adjacent natural areas, Stohlgren
Investigating the Importance of Land Cover on Evapotranspiration, Schaffer

 

None of your links are active. The trouble with this theory, is that, if true, one wouldn't expect the East Coast to have the highest increase in extreme precipitation events. Doesn't seem to hold water (pun intended).