Do to recent post's about NASA's screw ups, I no longer trust anything they say about our climate, nothing. Would you? Seriously.

Increased precepitation, both annual averages and daily extremes is one of the most robust outcomes of Global Warming.

Chapters 10 and 11 describe the expected changes in detail.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

Ultimately, Nature has 2 ways to reduce CO2 levels.

First, is thru increased plant growth. However, humans have been cutting and burning much plant growth which limits it ability to remove CO2. Other plant growth is harvested and burned or feed to animals and thus does not sequester CO2.

Second, increased precepitation will eventually was CO2 from the atmosphere. As the oceans warm, the amount of humidity in the air increases and precepitation on average will increase. Global Climate models do not predict that this will be uniform. Some areas will still have droughts. However, overall the amount of precepitation will increase.

Coincidence equals causality in the AGW world. No other evidence linking to AGW is given in the article.

SSTs were abnormally high near the equator a few years ago. Now they are generally cooler. I wonder if tropical rainfall is less this year?

I also wonder how SST anomalies could be going negative even though CO2 is increasing. Is it possible that there are other factors affecting the climate besides CO2? NOAA tells us (as of yesterday) that greenhouse gases are the only important factor affecting temperatures. Logically, SST anomalies should be increasing along with CO2.

Is it possible that some people at NOAA are no longer able to think objectively about this?

NASA is not perfect. However, they are the best that we have and they correct errors, no matter how small, when found.

The error, which some people seem to delight in, was so small that it has not changed any of the findings or conclusions of the IPCC in regards to Global Warming.

It is really a diservice to the thousands of hard working individuals within NASA and NOAA to dismiss their work out of hand.

Here is a link to the current state of the Earths climate.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/gcag.html

Notice, that there is significant warming over most of the oceans where there are no urban heat island or asphalt parking lots.

"When we look at the whole planet over almost three decades, the total amount of rain falling has changed very little," said study leader Guojun Gu of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "But in the tropics, where nearly two-thirds of all rain falls, there has been an increase of 5 percent."

A 5% trend in a 27 year record is not statistically significant. Anyone who has taken a high school level statistics course would be aware of this.

i am going to have to agree with you darren

Another example of observations backing up the theory. And yet, we are told by deniers that the models are "completely wrong."

NASA should stick to astronauts as they either try to launch them into orbit or bring them out of it. They are much better at that than trying to figure out the weather.

""A warming climate is the most plausible cause of this observed trend of tropical rainfall." said study team member Robert Alder." The standard catchall phrase for any phenomena that is not well understood. Maybe they should run it through one of their wonderful models to get the answer.

Who would you rather trust, NOAA (which provides data to all weather services, deals with complexity, and employs the best scientific expertise they can get) or a poster's sarcastic comments? Science is a work in progress, and making adjustments to models based on reality is a normal scientific activity, not a "screwup".

Yes, I know, I said I'm out of here for a bit, but couldn't let this go.

Science deserves a more comprehensive description so here's a try:

Think of cars, computers, and satellite images which arose out of them.

Scientists begin by observing reality. They think about it, make connections, develop ideas, sometimes involving long complex adjustments and improvements, and sometimes an "aha" moment. Once there is a theory, it must be verifiable by someone on the other side of the globe with the proper equipment to test it. For something like cars or computers, many people work on many different levels over a period of time, constantly adjusting and improving.

Computers used to take up large rooms but some peculiar conductivity properties allowed miniaturization. The basic switches 0 and 1 (check Babbage, 19th century?) became possible on a scale unimaginable at the beginning. Cars, likewise, are constantly being improved. Noone says, oh they didn't get it right the first time so it must be wrong.

The combination of cars and computers enables the space program and photography when sends pictures back to earth. Then, for example, an amateur like me looks at weather pictures over time and notices that north of the jet stream it's cool, south warm, and when it moves rapidly the conflict causes wild weather. I couldn't have known about this without modern communications and satellite imagery (NOAA) reported by weather services (AccuWeather) and shown to me on TV (computers again). And because I'm interested, I notice that it is abnormally hot in the south, extraordinarily nice where I live, and that floods and droughts appear to be increasing.

So that's a little more about science, written in haste because I really need to get back to my life, and subject to improvement by anyone who so wishes. Science, subject to constant adjustment, correction, improvement, and development, is not a religion, and no matter how much a scientist wants a pet theory to be right, it ain't over 'til the fat boy sings.

No one expects the NOAA or NASA to be perfect. The problem is that a few people at NOAA, NASA and the Met are using an opaque and flawed methodology to induce panic in government. This is the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

Al Gore has proposed an approach will cost 50% of the world's GDP according to a Harvard economist. It will cost countless jobs and cause many people to starve.

Whoever thinks that is all OK, please raise your hand.

Oh Oh!!
More touble for GISS brewing.
Steve Mcintyre is attempting to find Waldo! And is having one heck of a time using GISS data.

Waldo is refering to the global temperature trend increase. Climate Audit is examining data sets from around the world and posting the results.
Very Interesting viewing.
Hansen is going to melt down I think.

WW,

Who would you rather trust, CIA (which provides data to all security services, deals with complexity, and employs the best intelligence expertise they can get) or a poster's sarcastic comments about WMD in Iraq? Intelligence is a work in progress, and making adjustments to models based on reality is a normal intelligence activity, not a "screwup".

weather watcher ..... is not giving folks like Steve McIntrye the ability to look at the data part of NOAA's scientific expertise? I don't trust anyone that hides their data & methods from scrutiny like Hansen, Jones & Mann do ... what do you think they are hiding?? Why would anyone hide their data / algorithms if the reviewer was going to prove their science sound.
Andrew ... the oceans are accurate records of temp??
Do you know anything about how they acquire this data & the adjustments ( there is that word again!!! ) they make. Last I read the ocean temps were adjusted to reflect the high temperatures from the surface stations ... yes, all the ones in the parking lots & on roof tops that you say don't matter.

Last point ... if I read it correctly much of this data is calculated from satellite data .... I wonder what the range of error on the actual rainfall vrs the calculated rainfall might be?
Brett could you comment on this ... how accurate are you on rainfall amounts using your doppler radar etc? Reply: it varies greatly on the type of precipitation, setting on the radar, distance from the radar, elevations. Overall, the doppler radar does a pretty good job of estimating rainfall, and I would say within 20% of the actual measurments. The radars do tend to underestimate rainfall in tropical airmasses. Brett.

Last point ( again!! ) Andrew, Steve is looking at the African stations where you were sure that high quality temperature data would be found & guess what ... it is a gong show but Cape Town data does show the 30's hotter than the 90's. As Climate Audit works it's way around the world it isn't looking good for the hottest decade ever story.

Be good,
Folks.

Science is a work in progress, and making adjustments to models based on reality is a normal scientific activity, not a "screwup".

I thought the "science was settled". What's up with that? I guess the AGW crowd can have it both ways. Sort of like you did when you changed the crisis from Global Warming to Climate Change so that you can include any cooling trends in your scheme.

Who would you rather trust, NOAA...

Duh. Definitely not NOAA nor their partners in crime (so to speak), NASA, especially considering the shenanigans of Hansen and his associates.

yep, another lame attempt by a bunch of government busybodies trying to prop the idea of AGW...5% in the tropics over 25 years?...another selected time frame and selected fit of a preordained hypothesis?...wonder what the margin of error in measuring precip was? Reply: good question. Brett. Statistically speaking those more frequent cumulus-nimbus's were a non-event...another classic example of government paid groupies trying to please the boss that his make believe models are right...to an AGW scammer its more babble in support of the International Panel on Climate Conspiracy...

Let’s see in 27 years of good observations the last 10 are the rainiest! OK, so what is that supposed to tell me? They have been keeping records (hopefully accurate) for only 27 years. [Note: Remember a few weeks back the same people said that the equatorial region has few accurate recording stations] We don’t have a baseline just 27 years of observation.
Is a 5% increase over 27 years statistically significant? Come on this isn’t science. No matter what math machinations are used to impress the uninformed this information is just ….observations.
Please stop giving science a bad name. It offends those that actually care.

It is really a diservice to the thousands of hard working individuals within NASA and NOAA to dismiss their work out of hand.

It is really a disservice when NOAA and NASA make ridiculous press releases which discredit the hard working individuals in their organizations.

Blaming the skeptics who observe the problems is not a solution, is it?

i have said this once- twice, 3 times till i am blue in the face- there will always be years with above normal rainfall, below normal rainfall- such as the case with the southeast where theere under an exceptional drought- only because there was a blocking ridge of high pressure right over that area that wouldnt allow for cold-fronts to push threw with rain/severe storms- again there will also be years with above normal readings, and below normal readings- no i dont think it is global warming- i think a more reasonable explanation would be an el nino or la nina pattern- i mean no one year is going to be the same thing over the previous year

Tornadoes have dropped by 90% due to global warming.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2006/ann/ann-f3-f5tornadoes.gif
This plot from NOAA shows clearly that the huge 80-90% drop in severe tornadoes coincides with the period of rapid greenhouse gas increase since the mid-1970s. CO2 is killing our tornadoes, which is just exactly what Al Gore and the modelers (didn't) promise. The Wizard of Oz would never have been written had CO2 been spewed in such large quantities in the 1920s.

Even scarier is the drop in teen pregnancy rates, which also directly correlates to the increase in CO2. Since they both happened at the same time, they must be connected. Global warming is making our teens infertile!
http://www.teenpregnancy.org/america/statisticsDisplay.asp?ID=3&sID=24

Dorothy was much more likely to be carried away pregnant in a tornado in 1935. We need to introduce new taxes to reduce the slide in these two important icons of American tradition.

Brett, your editing (censoring) is obviously arbitrary and has the effect of completely altering the meaning of what a person has written.

My comment about NASA was not aimed at anyone on this blog, yet BT's "court jesters" comments have been aimed at every skeptic posting here. Reply: It does not have to be targeted at someone on the blog, and I thought your description was just over the edge. We are trying to avoid mean-spirited attacks on people and organizations just because of who they are, whether on this blog or not. You can easily make your point without some of the wording. Maybe I am wrong, but the "court Jesters" issue was explained by BT, and right or wrong I let it slide. BT has made his point with that phrase, so don't expect to see that again. Let's move on. Brett

If that is what you intend to do then this blog is no better than weather.com where they heavily censor as well. And if that is the case, and I will know when it happens again, then I'm out of here.

Reply, I would not call this heavily censored, not even close. Heavily censored is when I twist and change your wording and it results in a different point you are trying to make. I did not do that. If you think I did, then I am sorry. Brett

Some of you guys need to really think about some of these wild theories that are being thrown around.

In particular, be very careful of various flavors of conspiracy theories.

It is a technique used successfully by cultist and for good reason, because it appeals to a significant portion of the population. It is like gossip.

Also, vilification of various individuals is also typically non-productive as it leads to all types of biases.

NASA and NOAA are not political organizations. They are dedicated to providing the most accurate information possible and surely realize full well limitations of met data.

Do not just repeat conspiracy theories without basis.

It gets old and reflects on yourself more than anybody else.

Is a 5% increase over 27 years statistically significant? Come on this isn?t science.

It depends on how much noise is in the data.

Perhaps there is a need for a simple math lesson. Consider the following 2 series.

100,10,190,20,180,105

100,101,102,103,104,105

The established trend has already proven models that predict worsening droughts and longer heatwaves. Greece is blaming developers for the fires but the 2 month of heatwave has made the conditions right for just a spark to ignite the flames.

Higher rainfall in tropical regions will occur as the oceans heats up and sea water evaporates. North Atlantic and Pacific precipitation will also increase as the ocean warms and temperatures increase, these things do not need scientists to decipher.

The oceans are heating up and the kettle show signs of boiling, do we need it confirmed? At both poles evaporation once again will increase precipitation and add more snow cover to regions closer to the poles, but the loss of ice dissolving in warmer seas will accelerate.

In my little part of the world it is 28 degrees Celsius today after a couple of weeks during which the temperature has not fallen below 20 during the day. This is our tenth year of drought and for the first time ever the authorities have called in water restrictions and fire danger season during our winter.

Global warming and climate change is a myth?, this is cyclical? Not in the real world.

To help visualize how the equatorial regions cooled this year, I made a video from NOAA data of SST anomalies from January 3-August 27, 2007. All temperatures within +/- 1 degree of what NOAA considers normal are shown as the same shade of light blue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcY6Dx3TYwk

Note how the equatorial regions and most of the southern hemisphere have cooled dramatically, as has the Atlantic Ocean. You can also see how abnormal arctic melt starting in June gets represented as bright red areas (exaggerated in size by >7X on this projection), and why South America is so cold this winter.

One thing that is difficult to see at YouTube resolution, but very apparent on the original, is how Hurricane Dean cooled down the the path it tracked last week.

Reply: I also showed that in my canadian weather blog a couple days ago as you can see the cooler waters around the Yucatan Peninsula. Brett

patrick- strong- violent tornados are a rare phonomenon as it is- this year alone we are running above normal on tornados- the majority of tornados are EF-0- EF2- the minority of tornados are EF-3 and higher- i have been keeping track of E-F4 and E-F5 tornados- so far this year- there has been 3 F-4 Tornados and the one E-F5 tornado- and so far bye my count- from January 1st- through June 16th-there has been 806 tornado reports- now you consider the average year is 910 tornados- i have been unable t