UN says 2013's extreme weather is due to warming earth

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/24/extreme-weather-events-un-ipcc_n_5020012.html

Well, good.  I'm glad that's settled.

Lol. 

Right, Tuwood?

I'm not really sure how we've let Tony *UNDERWOOD* go this long without being called "Francis."  

Right, Francis?

lol, you guys are funny.  (and don't call me Francis)  

So an international political organization making a proclamation such as this is all it takes for you to believe it?  I unfortunately subscribe to the scientific method for my opinions on this topic, and the UN fear mongering to get more money/power isn't part of it.

I'm not aware of any scientific study that concludes that increasing global temperatures contribute to extreme weather.  In fact, most studies are pointing to the opposite that increasing temperatures are contributing to a reduction in extreme weather:

Late-Holocene land surface change in a coupled social–ecological system, southern Iceland: a cross-scale tephrochronology approach (finds storminess and extreme weather variability was far more common during the Little Ice Age in comparison to the Medieval Warm Period and the 20th century.)

North Atlantic Storms: Medieval Warm Period vs. Little Ice Age (For this particular portion of the planet, it should be very clear that relative coolness, as opposed to relative warmth, typically leads to more extreme storms, which is just the opposite of what the world's climate alarmists continue to contend.)

New paper finds the highest storm activity is associated with cold periods ("We find that high storm activity occurred periodically with a frequency of about 1,500 years, closely related to cold and windy periods.")

That wouldn't be bad news in Vietnam.  Charlie don't surf.

There are many studies linking increased global temps to increased extreme events, especially heatwaves.  Since you can't seem to find any, here's just a small sample of some of the most recent and highly cited: here, here and here.  

The studies you reference, while I think they're important (understanding factors influencing climate in the past is a good way to predict the future), they definitely do not represent most research on extreme events, and if you read them, they are not necessarily saying that cooler temps = more storms or warm temps = less storms.  For example, in the first paper finding more storminess during the LIA, they found that "the synoptic scale atmospheric variability during the MM, characterized by individually detected and tracked mid-latitude cyclones in the North Atlantic, was generally shifted southwards at the exit region of the storm track (i.e., over Europe)."  In other words, it's not necessarily that there were more storms, just that the storm track was shifted south during the cold periods to the region where the study was conducted and they detected an increase there.  This paper was pretty cool too in that they linked these changes in the NAO (which changed the storm track) to increased La Nina conditions half way around the world in the Pacific.

And in the last paper looking at cycles of storminess, they note that if we go by cycles, we should actually be at a low point and say "our results also indicate that modern coupled ocean atmosphere dynamics at North Atlantic mid-latitudes should trend towards the low phase of the 1,500-year internal oceanic cycle, in contrast to LIA climate conditions. This observation is highly relevant, as it highlights that the recent increase in storm activity diverges from its natural background variability."

There are good reasons to expect an overall decrease in storms with a warming world - they're driven by energy imbalances, and if the poles and the equator are closer in temperature to each other, we'd expect to see less energy moving between them.  But acting against that is an overall increase of energy retained in the atmosphere due to our CO2, so we'd expect extreme temperature and precip events to be more extreme than they'd otherwise be, which is consistent with what we're now observing.

ETA- BTW - just saw this paper just out today predicting decreased storminess in Australia due to GW. Bad news for Bodhi & Johnny Utah.

There are many studies linking increased global temps to increased extreme events, especially heatwaves.  Since you can't seem to find any, here's just a small sample of some of the most recent and highly cited: here, here and here.  

The studies you reference, while I think they're important (understanding factors influencing climate in the past is a good way to predict the future), they definitely do not represent most research on extreme events, and if you read them, they are not necessarily saying that cooler temps = more storms or warm temps = less storms.  For example, in the first paper finding more storminess during the LIA, they found that "the synoptic scale atmospheric variability during the MM, characterized by individually detected and tracked mid-latitude cyclones in the North Atlantic, was generally shifted southwards at the exit region of the storm track (i.e., over Europe)."  In other words, it's not necessarily that there were more storms, just that the storm track was shifted south during the cold periods to the region where the study was conducted and they detected an increase there.  This paper was pretty cool too in that they linked these changes in the NAO (which changed the storm track) to increased La Nina conditions half way around the world in the Pacific.

And in the last paper looking at cycles of storminess, they note that if we go by cycles, we should actually be at a low point and say "our results also indicate that modern coupled ocean atmosphere dynamics at North Atlantic mid-latitudes should trend towards the low phase of the 1,500-year internal oceanic cycle, in contrast to LIA climate conditions. This observation is highly relevant, as it highlights that the recent increase in storm activity diverges from its natural background variability."

There are good reasons to expect an overall decrease in storms with a warming world - they're driven by energy imbalances, and if the poles and the equator are closer in temperature to each other, we'd expect to see less energy moving between them.  But acting against that is an overall increase of energy retained in the atmosphere due to our CO2, so we'd expect extreme temperature and precip events to be more extreme than they'd otherwise be, which is consistent with what we're now observing.

ETA- BTW - just saw this paper just out today predicting decreased storminess in Australia due to GW. Bad news for Bodhi & Johnny Utah.

But as you mentioned it is hard to detect trends in extreme events and there's no real scientific method to quantify them.  So, when the alarmists at the UN come out touting that 2013 was an "increase in extreme weather" I call BS or at the least ask an increase from what?  Then they say that it's consistent with the effects of AGW, but scientists haven't been able to quantify or observe the effects and some studies even indicate a calming effect on weather.

I know for North America, which is obviously just a small part of the Globe we had one of the least extreme years on record with record low numbers of what most people consider extreme events.
Tornados (lowest since 2000),
Wildfires (lowest in ten years),
Extreme Heat (lowest 100 degree plus days in almost 100 years) BTW, the highest years with the most 100 degree plus days in the US were 1936, 1934, 1954, 1980, & 1930 from highest to lowest.
Atlantic Hurricane's lowest since early 90's

Obviously they're referring to some of the global events, which very well may be "more extreme", but they're always listed as "the worst flooding in 50 years" or the worse drought in 75 years type events, but what then caused them 50 or 75 years ago?

You can't take data from a single summer that occurred over 7% of the planet and attach any meaning to it.  For one thing, scientists themselves acknowledge they don't totally know yet how or if warming affects tornadoes and hurricanes. Wildfires is just cherry picked data, it was a lower # of fires, but the second highest amount of acres burned ever.  So fewer fires but they were a lot bigger.  In fact, there was fire burning in Rocky Mtn National Park a year ago in December!  I don't know if you know what it's like at 12,000 in Colorado in december, but it's not normally considered fire weather.  As far as extreme heat goes, this is one area of extremes where scientists are actually able to quantify with good certainty that we're seeing an increase in extreme events (as opposed to precip events where changes in frequency are harder to detect).  Over the last last decade we're seeing two record hot temperatures recorded for every one cold one (if the climate was in balance you'd expect it to be 1:1) and the number of unusually hot summer temperatures has been steadily increasing.  13 of the 14 hottest years on record have been this century and you have to go back to 1985 to find a month where the global avg temp was below the 20th century avg.

[The irony of that chart is the record cold we've been experiencing in the northern hemisphere this last year.  Coldest in 100 years I believe.  

I agree that the US is just a small portion and means nothing globally, but it is still a valid data point.  
I'm curious how the graph above and your thoughts reconciles with these key statements from the IPCC AR5 WGI Chapter 2 on extremes. (my emphasis on the bolded section)

“Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is large spatial variability”

“There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”

“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”

“In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”

“In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems”

“In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950”

“In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low”

The irony is that despite the cold in the US, globally it was the 4th warmest January on record.

I think the graphs above reconcile fine with the IPCC findings on extremes.  It says "most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves" which is in line.  We have good temperature records and clearly see increased frequency and intensity of heat waves outside the range of natural variability.  

As far as the other trends go, I don't really see anything crazy either.  I'll point out again that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  The low confidences are not because there is no trend, it's because the extreme events are by definition rare so it takes a long time for a trend to be able to statistically detected. 

For the bolded part - the same thing holds for drought.  The lack of a global trend is not necessarily because there is no trend, it's because extreme droughts are rare, and for most of the world, monitoring is sparse and there isn't much historical record to go on, so there just isn't enough data to detect a global trend.  But that's not the same thing as saying there is no trend  Another thing to consider when thinking about drought is that it depends on where you are.  Under climate change, the expectation is that the wet areas will get wetter and the dry areas will get dryer.  As you might guess, many fewer people live in deserts so there are fewer monitors there making it more difficult to detect a trend. 

From the IPCC: "Compelling arguments both for and against significant increases in the land area affected by drought and/or dryness since the mid-20th century have resulted in a low confidence assessment of observed and attributable large-scale trends. This is due primarily to a lack and quality of direct observations, dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice, geographical inconsistencies in the trends and difficulties in distinguishing decadal scale  variability from long term trends."

There are many studies out there predicting an increase in extreme heat waves such as the recent one in Australia, so when the WMO says these observations are in line with expectations it's hardly going out on a limb or being 'alarmist'.  I don't think you can take an individual extreme event and say that it's some kind of smoking gun for climate change like some people like to do.  But we do have good evidence for increasing heat waves and ok evidence so far for changes in precip (esp increases in frequency and intensity of heavy heavy rainfall), so when taken as a whole, the patterns of extreme weather are changing in line with our expectations.  As data for other less frequent phenomena such as droughts and hurricanes comes in with time we'll be better able to say with more certainty whether those are changing as well.

I don't know how well I spelled out my perspective, so if that was clear as mud let me know.

lol, I know we keep hashing this back and forth, but I truly enjoy the discussions and for the record I didn't start this one.  

I also think we're just debating the effects of a warming planet which really isn't the issue.

And I think you hit the nail on the head.  It's fairly straightforward to say we're warming up the planet because it's something we can go out and actually measure  and see the effects already occurring in any number of ways.  But predictions are hard in any discipline, especially one as complex as the atmosphere and it's good to scrutinize them.  But the catch is that the climate system is a one way street.  It's not like Obamacare or something where if it turns out not to work we can go back and try again.  The changes we're making to the atmosphere are pretty much irreversible on a human time scale.  There's no way to pull the CO2 out of the air or put the ice back in Greenland.

All I know is that because of this winter morel mushrooms are already about 3 weeks late from when I have found them the last 10 years, and I'd venture a guess it'll still be another 10 days before we find the first of them here.  This is bullcrap.

Um Hello, Global warming caused by CFCs, not carbon dioxide and CO2 helps the plants grow.  ;-)

Oh, and don't forget a huge contributor to Greenland's ice melting is the high heat flow from the mantle into the lithosphere.  It's melting from below.

(btw Drew, I'm trying to be funny with the CFC's.  I know it's just a contributor but I do like how the graphs line up)