Is the weather really becoming more volatile?

In a story about Scientists warn California could be struck by winter ‘superstorm,’ I read this “interesting” line:

The risk is gathering momentum now, scientists say, due to rising temperatures in the atmosphere, which has generally made weather patterns more volatile.

Has anybody seen a study verifying that weather patterns have become more volatile? How does one even measure weather volatility?

As I’m sure you guessed, I am skeptical of this claim. But if there is any evidence to it, I’d sure be interested in seeing it. (Please post links in the comments to any studies.)

Way back when people were talking about Global Warming, that is before it became Global Climate Change, which was before it was called Global Climate Chaos, I predicted that Global Warming would be renamed Global Climate Volatility. Now, I see this is true, though they have not yet adopted my name for it.

To return to the article:

The threat of a cataclysmic California storm has been dormant for the past 150 years. Geological Survey director Marcia K. McNutt told the New York Times that a 300-mile stretch of the Central Valley was inundated from 1861-62. The floods were so bad that the state capital had to be moved to San Francisco, and Governor Leland Stanford had to take a rowboat to his own inauguration, the report notes. Even larger storms happened in past centuries, over the dates 212, 440, 603, 1029, 1418, and 1605, according to geological evidence.

So this “cataclysmic” event has happened many times before. But remember, next time it occurs, it surely was caused by Global Climate Volatility.

6 responses to “Is the weather really becoming more volatile?

  1. Pingback: Tweets that mention Is the weather really becoming more volatile? | The Path to Tyranny Blog --

  2. I don’t have a study, but meteorologist Joe Bastardi is excellent when it comes to finding real-world data, not some theory, debunking the global warming/big government crowd.

    • At least with global warming, they can point to certain evidence to make their case. We can argue with the accuracy (how it’s measured), validity (is measuring 100 years of data enough), and its importance (is man causing this), but at least there is something to debate.

      But here, the MSM says outright: “rising temperatures in the atmosphere, which has generally made weather patterns more volatile.” You cannot, or should not, throw around assertions like that without some sort of evidence.

  3. It is actually easy to measure. More volatile weather means, that even the averages (temperature, precipitation) are constant, there are more fluctuations against the “normals”. Such “rate of volatility” can be easily expressed as standard deviation (SD) of daily temps/precips. KNMI website keeps daily T/precip for many stations and allows to calculate the SD.
    Precipitation, annual SD from daily data, Prague-Klementinum observatory

    Temperature, annual SD from daily data, Milano

    No trend, no proof, just another unfounded claim. You can do it for any long-term station with daily or monthly data with the same result.

    • Thank you for the data. I too agree that it should be easy to measure, but never saw any studies. I couldn’t let the claim of climate volatility go unchallenged.

      I guess that’s why most say extreme weather. No way to statistically measure that. The less verifiable, the easier it is for them to make outrageous claims.

  4. Pingback: Global Climate Volatility disproven | The Path to Tyranny Blog

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s