California Floods Every 200 Years.... The wave of storms battering California might be the beginning of a rain event not seen since 1861, when it rained for 43 days. What Is This “Atmospheric River” That Is Flooding California? http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...t-is-flooding-california/?WT.mc_id=SA_Twitter "In 1861 an atmospheric river that brought storms for 43 days turned California’s Central Valley into an inland sea 300 miles long and 20 miles wide. Thousands of people died, 800,000 cattle drowned and the state went bankrupt. A similar disaster today would be much more devastating, because the region is much more populated and it is the single largest food producer in the U.S. So maybe 1861 was an oddity. Not really. Geologic core samples show that extreme floods like the one in 1861 have happened in California about every 200 years, since the year 200 A.D. So the next disaster could be coming around the bend." (More at above url)
If you get the feeling that heavy downpours are more intense than they used to be, you’re not imagining it. According to the National Climate Assessment, the most extreme precipitation events (those in the 99th percentile of intensity) have increased in every region of the contiguous states since the 1950s. As the map above shows, the rise in intensity has been greatest in the Northeast and least in the Southwest — and in all cases, climate scientists believe, the reason is simple: in a world warmed by heat-trapping greenhouse gases, there’s more evaporation, and the atmosphere can hold on to more water. And when that water vapor condenses as rain or snow, there’s more of it.
Amusing. A report put together by a group climate change alarmists that attempts to blame every weather event on global warming. Sadly this disagrees with reports from NOAA (which I posted a link to), NASA, and the British Met which state that weather events in the past 5 years have NOTHING to do with climate change. Who are you going to believe - a fringe organization of alarmists, or the mainstream respected organizations?
So you don't believe the recent reports from NOAA, NASA, and the British Met that recent extreme weather has nothing to do with climate change? Good to know. Should I post links to all of the reports again? Maybe this time you will read them.
They don't quite say that, and all of the weather is now being affected by global warming and many of the recent extreme weather events ARE due to AGW. This is what the vast majority of climate scientists believe. In addition, there is little question that extreme precip events (see above chart) and high intensity hurricanes are becoming more numerous due to GW. Again, not surprising if one uses some common sense logic. So once again you assume things because of your sheeplike nature and poor comprehension skills that are simply not true.
GWB....From your "NOAA report" which BTW is not a NOAA report. with 22 studies looking at 16 events, a few interesting patterns emerge. Examining Table 24.1 reveals that the nine analyses of extreme heat events overwhelmingly showed that human-caused climate change is having an influence. In some cases, events have become as much as 10 times more likely due to the current cumulative effects of human-induced climate change, as found for the Korean heat wave of summer 2013. These individual examples are consistent with the broader trends captured in the latest IPCC (Stocker et al. 2014) statement, “it is likely that the frequency of heat waves has increased in large parts of Europe, Asia and Australia.” At the other end of the temperature distribution, the one analysis of a cold event found that such events were becoming much less likely. So, not only can't you read, or know the source, but you just assume that what you read on Forbes will be right. Like I said before, you are right wing sheep. bah bah
Why don't you post from the summary of the report. You know the part that states that weather events 2013 were conclusively not caused by "climate change" - instead of quoting information out of one of the papers it referenced but rejected.
what the hell are you bahing about now sheep? That's a quote directly from summary section of the paper you called a NOAA paper but isn't a NOAA paper . Just admit it. Like a good sheep you just blindly accepted what a right wing propagandist told you about the paper even though it was wrong. Just for once, try use something other than a right wing propaganda source for your "Science" and maybe I'll take you seriously. You're just like jem only stupider.