progressiveslol wrote on Apr 13
th, 2012 at 9:52am:
[quote author=31292F335C0 link=1332141844/60#60 date=1334273897]
I am not totally up with the information available that suggests the 'events' may be called in a more pedantic way than it used to be. At this point I will hold my thinking on this until I research it further, but if true, then the graph you show could merely show events being called events, today, when they would not have been from yesteryear.
This is not to state the graph is wrong, it is just to state that it may need a closer look.
A closer look at the paper you cited would be a
very good idea, because you misrepresented the attribution of the key point in your last post, making it look as if it applied to the US as a whole. If you read the entire paragraph, it's actually stating which areas are consistent with the IPCC predictions (which apply to a 100 year timeline that hasn't eventuated yet), and which are not.
Quote:There are some notable similarities and notable differences between the spatial pattern of change shown in Fig. 1, and the pattern of projected change in annual runoff from 1980–1999 to 2090–2099, as illustrated in maps published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), such as Figure 3.4 of Bates et al. (2008), recognizing that the former is
focused on flood magnitude while the latter is on overall water availability. The similarity is strong in terms of the trend towards drying conditions in the Rocky Mountains and arid southwest. In addition, the relatively neutral results in the Southeast and Northwest
quadrants of the USA also show a general agreement between this study and the IPCC projections.
However, the highly focused area of very high β 1 values near and to the south of the Red River of the North shows up as an area of virtually no change in the runoff projection map. This study’s analysis of floods in this particular area, as well as other analyses related to mean runoff conditions in the same area, are very much at odds with the climate change impact assessment reported by the IPCC.
The crux of your argument:
The stream gauge figures to the South of the Red River of the North shows virtually no change (ignoring the fact that two other areas show a change consistent with IPCC predictions)
Therefore : Quote:USA must be on a different planet as this study suggest no catastrophic climate change impact on weather events thus far.
Embarrassed yet?