The new data coming out is so much more enlightening than what might be hidden in the archives. What is really pathetic here is not what is hidden, but the desperate effort to hide it.

What I was referring to is actual numerical data on the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, but corrected for possible distortion by the fact that there are now more people, scattered over larger areas, and the news media are better equipped to report on it. Its like crime data, if you watch the news its hard to reconcile the endless litany of violence and bloodshed with an actual reduction of crime that has been occurring lately for purely demographic reasons. (Most crimes are carried out by young people, and the percentage of crime-age youth is decreasing as the population ages.)

Another example, the news is full of stories of crimes by illegal immigrants, even though statistics actually indicate that they commit less crimes per capita than the average citizen (probably because they are trying to keep a low profile to avoid la migra).

I don’t think there is a malicious effort to exaggerate (or conversely, under-report) these events, just that news editors are trying to generate readership, and there are fashions in public and journalistic interest that raise the demand for certain types of stories. They sell newspapers, or viewer eyeballs, which is where the real market is. Its a dynamic which probably operates subconsciously.

Are these enhanced floods, tornadoes, droughts, blizzards etc a result of global warming? Its hard to tell since these events have always existed. It seems a reasonable assumption, but I would like to see it quantified. For example, it seems that warming should lead to more frequent and devastating hurricanes, but that does not seem to be the case (we have excellent hurricane data, at least in the Atlantic, going back quite a ways). As it turns out, other factors (such as El Nino) also may play a role. But couldn’t El Nino activity also be a result of global climate change? The polar ice extent, area and volume figures I often post here are very dramatic, but one reason I report them is precisely because they are unambiguous and need no interpretation, and come from homogeneous sources. But even they are compelling only because we now have almost four decades of data to compare with. A mere ten year sample taken out of these measures would show no trends through the noise. Tornado statistics from the 19th century aren’t quite as uniform. We probably missed most of them.

No doubt there are weather researchers who actually do compile these stats and they make an effort to adjust them for the other factors I mentioned, but I’m not familiar enough with the literature in that field to locate this material, or to evaluate it. And as always, statistical data is always subject to interpretation and bias. You can prove pretty much anything you want, look at the economists and psychologists! All those equations, sigmas and deltas give it an air of authenticity and legitimacy, (as well as the oh-so-earnest assurances that only the most powerful computers have been doing the number crunching), but it is inevitably riddled with assumptions, especially archival information that has not been collected with modern rigor and robust methodologies.

Try https://www.epa.gov/climate-change-science/understanding-link-between-climate-change-and-extreme-weather+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us” rel=”nofollow”>this link.

Not only is the article available there, but you can now go past it to get to the wide range of original sources used as references. The top links are kacked, but most of the references at the bottom still work, including some EPA references.

The internet is forever.

One trick I use on archived websites with a lot of links is converting it to a PDF file with active links in it. I can then reference it even if the original site expires, and access any links from that.

Evidence continues to mount that climate change has pushed the Arctic into a new state. Skyrocketing temperatures are altering the essence of the region, melting ice on land and sea, driving more intense wildfires, altering ocean circulation, and dissolving permafrost.

A new report chronicles all these changes and warns that even if the world manages to keep global warming below the targeted 2 °C threshold, some of the shifts could be permanent. Among the most harrowing are the disappearance of sea ice by the 2030s and more land ice melt than previously thought, pushing seas to more extreme heights.

The findings, released Apr. 24 in the Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA) assessment, come after a winter of extreme discontent for the region. Sea ice receded a bit in November, a rare occurrence, and hit a record-low maximum for the third year in a row. Temperatures averaged 11 °F above normal, driven by sustained mild weather that was punctured by periods of almost unheard of heat when temperatures reached up to 50 °F above normal.

This past winter is just the most recent in a string of bizarre years, and the report, authored by 90 Arctic experts, is the latest in a long line of increasingly dire warnings for the fastest-warming region on the planet. If carbon pollution isn’t slowed, parts of the Arctic could warm a whopping 16 °F by the 2050s.

“With each additional year of data, it becomes increasingly clear that the Arctic as we know it is being replaced by a warmer, wetter, and more variable environment,” the scientists wrote. “This transformation has profound implications for people, resources, and ecosystems worldwide.”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/major-report-prompts-warnings-that-the-arctic-is-unraveling1/

The report increases projections for global sea-level rise, which takes into account all sources of melting including the Arctic. Their new minimum estimates are now almost double those issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2013 for some emissions scenarios. In fact, the latest calculations suggest that the IPCC’s middle estimates for sea-level rise should now be considered minimum estimates.
In one scenario, which assumes that carbon emissions rise slightly above the goals set by the 2015 Paris climate agreement—but still see a considerable reduction—sea levels would increase by at least 0.52 metres by 2100, compared with 2006, the Arctic report says. Under a business-as-usual scenario, the minimum increase would be 0.74 metres.
Although aggressive reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions will make a crucial difference by the end of the century, dramatic changes are still likely over the next few decades, says Morten Skovgård Olsen, who coordinated the assessment and leads the Danish Ministry of Energy, Utilities and Climate’s Arctic programme.
“The Arctic that you will have by mid-century will be very different from the Arctic that we see today,” he says.

And the Antarctic:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39759329

And I have never before felt so proud that I was an American.

Yet another fear among scientists and climate activists has become reality in the era of Trump.

Decades of research and data about carbon emissions, other greenhouse gases, and more was hidden from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) website by the Trump administration late Friday as the sprawling climate change webpage goes under “review.”

Adding insult to injury, this comes on the eve of the People’s Climate March.

Climate change activists have been wringing their hands ever since Inauguration Day, fearing that the new administration would do something just like this. The EPA has been chipping away at climate change mentions on its website since January, but Friday’s takedown is the biggest, and most disturbing step yet.

The webpage, which has been in existence for more than 20 years, explained what climate change is, what caused it and how it affects your health, among other things. In contrast to what Trump and his EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, have said about climate change (they don’t believe it’s man-made), the webpage notes many times how humans have contributed to climate change.

“Research indicates that natural causes do not explain most observed warming, especially warming since the mid-20th century. Rather, it is extremely likely that human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming,” the webpage read, according to an archived version captured before Friday.

Starting Friday evening, going to EPA.gov/climate and EPA.gov/climatechange sent visitors to a landing page that said, “This page is being updated.” In an agency statement about the website changes, there’s no mention of removing all the content, even if temporarily.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=941PHEJHCwU