For the most part, the Cult of Climastrology has failed in their doomsaying when it comes to storms. Their constantly changing duckspeak on hurricanes, for example. On tornadoes. On the end of snow. And so much other weather. So, now we get
Climate change will drive stronger, smaller storms in US
The effects of climate change will likely cause smaller but stronger storms in the United States, according to a new framework for modeling storm behavior developed at the University of Chicago and Argonne National Laboratory. Though storm intensity is expected to increase over today’s levels, the predicted reduction in storm size may alleviate some fears of widespread severe flooding in the future.
The new approach, published today in Journal of Climate, uses new statistical methods to identify and track storm features in both observational weather data and new high-resolution climate modeling simulations. When applied to one simulation of the future effects of elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide, the framework helped clarify a common discrepancy in model forecasts of precipitation changes.
“Climate models all predict that storms will grow significantly more intense in the future, but that total precipitation will increase more mildly over what we see today,” said senior author Elisabeth Moyer, associate professor of geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago and co-PI of the Center for Robust Decision-Making on Climate and Energy Policy (RDCEP). “By developing new statistical methods that study the properties of individual rainstorms, we were able to detect changes in storm frequency, size, and duration that explain this mismatch.”
Great. More computer models. The same as looking into a crystal ball. Regardless, it’s all about future doom
“While our results apply to only one model simulation,” Moyer said, “we do know that the amount-intensity discrepancy is driven by pretty basic physics. Rainstorms in every model, and in the real world, will adjust in some way to let intensity grow by more than total rainfall does. Most people would have guessed that storms would change in frequency, not in size. We now have the tools at hand to evaluate these results across models and to check them against real-world changes, as well as to evaluate the performance of the models themselves.”
And, as you’d expect, this is all blamed on Mankind. They take what is a primarily natural process, then blame Mankind, then create computer models to support their pseudo-religious beliefs, then demand all sorts of Big Government solutions. Oh, and more money for “research.”
A victory for protesting Sioux and US military veterans:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/04/us/federal-officials-to-explore-different-route-for-dakota-pipeline.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Of course, president Trump (an investor in the pipeline) can, and will likely reverse this. If conservatives can kick a minority in the teeth AND reward the wealthy they will. It’s a win-win for Republicans.
Climate scientists are largely independent. The data-driven conclusions of one group do not always represent the entire field. This finding may or may not be verified by others, or might be considered so far afield that it is not taken too seriously. That’s how science works. It’s messy; it’s reiterative; it’s constantly self correcting.
Teach typed his summation:
The article cited did not mention causation.
The current rapid warming is not a “natural process”, but is caused by man’s burning of fossil fuels and land use changes.
They did not blame anyone.
Skeptic “scientists” are welcome to use their computer models and data to refute their conclusions.
What part of the Earth warming from increased CO2 in the atmosphere do you consider a religious belief?
They did not demand solutions, Big Government or otherwise.
They did not discuss financing further research.
In post-fact America, anything goes. Need a fact? Make one up.
Well, that seems to be what the little lying pussy guy does.