Sooooooo, I was instead asking you to look at the links on trends in Jet Streams and Tropical Belts. For one, those are proper studies (not blog posts), and two, they don't discuss single extreme events, but longer term trends, and matches them with GW predictions. (I feel like I've said this already...)
I'd love to comment the first one, but it is behind a paywall...
About the second, I have no comment really but to attest that the paper is there claiming evidence for the widening of the tropical belts. Ok, sure. I have no idea if that theory could hold intense scrutiny, but I have no problems whatsoever in accepting that this may well be happening. The conclusions seem harsh
Of particular concern are the semi-arid regions poleward of the subtropical dry belts, including the Mediterranean, the southwestern United States and northern Mexico, southern Australia, southern Africa, and parts of South America. A poleward expansion of the tropics is likely to bring even drier conditions to these heavily populated regions, but may bring increased moisture to other areas. Widening of the tropics would also probably be associated with poleward movement of major extratropical climate zones due to changes in the position of jet streams, storm tracks, mean position of high and low pressure systems, and associated precipitation regimes. An increase in the width of the tropics could bring an increase in the area affected by tropical storms, or could change climatological tropical cyclone development regions and tracks.
However, their wording is pretty much maybe perhaps why not. They speak of drier conditions on some areas, but they neglect to speak about the
receding Sahara desert as a big counter example. Perhaps because this is not a "particular concern", so it wouldn't be listed. But that's the whole problem, you see, that the list is just about those bad things that will perhaps happen, and not discussing the "pros" that the phenomena will also inevitably bring about.
Weather is not driven by global temperature variation temperature differences between the equator and the poles, as you claimed. A thunderstorm over Texas has no idea what the temperature is over the Arctic Ocean. The thunderstorm was born from the latent heat released by water vapor rising and condensing in an unstable atmosphere. It should also be noted that atmospheric instability increases with both water vapor content and surface temperature. If you increase surface temperatures (GW), you increase evaporation and atmospheric instability, and thus the available convective potential energy to fuel storms. So with warmer global temperatures (GW), you ought to expect stronger storms.
Can I make that any clearer? How about this?
Storms don't feel the temperature gradient between the poles. They're driven by local scale convection, between the earth's surface and the air aloft. GW acts to promote this, for obvious reasons.
I'm sorry if you felt I was being facetious, but you did write that one badly in your first attempt. Now, you may assert what you will, but to say that the gradient of temperatures between the poles and the equator won't factor in the climate general picture and thus in all thunderstorms, is a bit of an overstretch. I did concede the basic point that you are stating that more energy in sea surface will result in more energetic storms. It just so happens that the climate is somewhat more complex than that, and there's much more than hot sea waters creating storms.
I notice you didn't say a thing about the paragraph under that, discussing regional weather.
I disagree with you here. You haven't presented an argument that things will change *for worse*, only that things *will change*. I'm not saying that such an argument doesn't exist, just that you didn't formulate it.
Um, yes, I did:
By changing that, you change the global circulation patterns, thus changing regional climate and pretty much cause problems everywhere since everything has to adapt to a new regime.
You seemed to failed to understand my point. My point wasn't that there will be losers in the climate. My point is that you are making a huge assumption that all changes will be for the worse. But this assumes that the current planet "state" is the "perfect" one, and not just the "current" one. This is surely wrong, and there are many regions in the planet that would welcome the warming that the IPCC anticipates for them. Again, you have made the point that there will be regions which will cope worse than now, but you have failed to demonstrate that all the changes are for the worse.
Unless you think that the planet is in some sort of a "holist perfect state" now and that we have come to destroy it by tinker with it, the expectation of "losers" and "winners" almost flows tautologically from the phenomena of Climate Change.
This is not to excuse the phenomena. It may well be that there will be more losers than winners, and the mere chance of this happening is sufficient to trigger the precautionary principle.
You are missing the point of the Jet streams migrating, which is really sad because I've only mentioned and linked to that topic several times already. By weakening the temperature variation between the poles, the Jet streams shift. If you know anything about how regional climate works, you'll know that Jet Streams play a major role in the development and movement of air masses, frontal systems, and storms. Thus, by weakening the temperature variation between the poles, you cause shifts in the weather systems and where they occur, and thus cause more extreme weather events.
You are the one missing the point, by thinking that this variation will only cause *one* phenomena. In your speech, less global temperature variation seems to only cause a wider Jet Stream. The other non sequitur that I am also unable to accept is that you automatically conclude that this widening will inevitably result in more extreme weather events. It could. But it could also work differently.
More storms? I never said there would be more storms. I said that you'd expect to see more extreme weather events. Individual storms ought to have more oomph to them though, since GW tends to increase the amount of available convective energy in the lower atmosphere.
Ok, point remains. Climate is still more complex than that for you to automatically conclude that sentence.
If you *assume* that there is such an amazing trend, and if you also *assume* that natural variations aren't probably the cause for many of these phenomena. Alas, there are too many assumptions in your science.
Which trend, exactly, do you think I'm making an assumption on?
The first assumption is about a rising trend of "extreme weather events". You have shown a graph for this on wikipedia, but you seemingly assume the departure from earthquakes must automatically mean a climatic signal. I see in there a non-sequitur. There might be many more reasons for this departure and I can recall some of them just by memory. For instance, the flood numbers are departing from the Earthquakes. This may well mean a climate signal of more intense rainfall. But it can also signify the utterly bad urban development in almost the entire world, specially the third world one, since the urban development in cities and mega-cities tends to occupy the entirety of the valleys first (and then the hills), waterproofing the valleys without any planning at all. The end result is what happened in Pakistan some time ago. How will you disentangle this completely reasonable argument from the climate signal?
The cyclone signal is easily dismissed as a sign of human preferrence for coastal development, instead of "hinterland" development, and the current literature agrees with me.
The second assumption is that this trend, even if real and clearly a sign of a changing climate, is not the byproduct of a natural climatic variation, as it *must* be even if only by a few percent. How did you measure this? How can anyone?
