Biblical in Boulder. Apocalyptic in Italy. (Sardinia, actually)
17 inches in 24 hours. That sounds normal.
The island, which draws royals, entrepreneurs and ordinary tourists alike during the dry, peak summer months, received more than 44 centimeters (17.3 inches) of rain in 24 hours Monday — half the amount it normally receives in a year, officials said.
2 years ago it was in Genova (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15602121). Could it be in summer the Mediterranean is heating up more than in the past??
Mediterranean cyclones:
Sept 1947
Sept 1969
Sept 1983
Oct 1996
Sept 2006
Nov 2011
Nov 2013
Thanks for the history. Let’s see – 22 years, 14 years, 13 years, 10 years, 5 years, 2 years. If we plotted that, would it look something like – a hockey stick, perhaps? What an astonishing coincidence! And there are still people claiming that there’s no real evidence of a new normal.
but that is not the actual history. This is a history of major rain events just in southern Sardinia, for example (Ottobre=October and so on):
1796 5 Ottobre
1796 27 Ottobre
1856 28 Ottobre
1889 5 Ottobre
1892 La notte tra il 21 ed il 22 Ottobre
1893 La notte tra il 28-29 Novembre
1929 La notte tra il 7 – 8 Ottobre
1929 9-10 Novembre
1930 10-14 Febbraio
1939 Il pomeriggio del 31 Agosto
1946 Notte tra il 26-27 Ottobre
1951 15-19 Ottobre.
1953 16 Marzo
1957 22 Gennaio.
1961 22 – 23 Novembre
1965 17 – 18 – 25 Ottobre
1985 28-29 OTTOBRE
1986 14-17 OTTOBRE
1988 1 OTTOBRE
1990 9 OTTOBRE
1999 11-12-13 NOVEMBRE
2002 9 Ottobre
2002 11 Novembre.
2004 6 Dicembre.
2005 13 Novembre
2006 25 Settembre
2006 13 Novembre
2008 22 ottobre.
http://www.dexipuzzus.it/cronistoria-degli-eventi-alluvionali-nella-sardegna-meridionale/
and Maurizio’s soccer field becomes even longer and narrower again. What next? The number of times in Alghero where the wind gusted more than 10 knots? Your idiotic arguments are becoming ever more entertaining as you struggle ever more to cling to whatever your actual position is. I’m not sure even you know what that is anymore and has probably become personally irrelevant as your consistent need to troll overrides any ability to think rationally. You have my pity.
Why would my arguments be idiotic? You assign meteorological labels mindlessly and in total ignorance of the phenomenon, get random years in a list out of who-knows-where without bothering to add a link to any source, move immediately the argument to a personal level (a very strong sign of being a troll yourself), etc etc.
A rain-caused tragedy in Sardinia in Autumn is not news. What should be news is that people still haven’t learnt the lesson, build where they shouldn’t, etc etc.
Cyclone/Hurricane: a system of winds rotating inwards to an area of low barometric pressure, with an anticlockwise (northern hemisphere) or clockwise (southern hemisphere) circulation; a depression.
Medicane: On rare occasions, tropical-like systems, that can reach the intensity of hurricanes, occur over the Mediterranean Sea. Such a phenomenon is called a Medicane (mediterranean-hurricane).
“it wasn’t a “cyclone””
“here’s a list of “medicanes” from Wikipedia….. from 15 to 19 November 2013, in the western Mediterranean”
“Why would my arguments be idiotic?”
ummmmmmmmm………………………………………………….
See my below link. Even the major rain events set posted has an upward trend in it. [Sorry – couldn’t figure out how to reply to two people at once on this blog].
Guys, even this history has an upward trend to it. Here I made a picture:
http://www.hiltonheadadventurer.com/PDF_backups/MajorRainEventsSardinia.JPG
I took the frequency between events, added 1 to each point (to account for the years where two events happened; that way I wouldn’t have any zeros in my data), divided 1 by each of those numbers and plotted the points. I even added an ordinary least squares trend line for kicks – or at least that’s what I think it is – I don’t really use the program but once a year or so, and the program labeled it simply ‘linear’.
Andrew – not sure what to make with your data. Perhaps column headers would help. Anyway, upward trends might simply be due to better recording of events. That’s why we’d need a peer-reviewed scientific article making a good analysis of any trends.
I have looked in AR5 but cannot find mention of increasing precipitation affecting the Western Mediterranean right now or in the past (there is some talk about it from the 2020s-2030s). But I won’t claim my search to have been exhaustive.
it wasn’t a “cyclone” (the core wasn’t “warm” at the time…paradoxically, it may have evolved such a core a day after hitting Sardinia), the island has been hit by these disasters many times in the past and especially in November, people have built where they shouldn’t have and actively prevented many preventative measures, etc etc.
Hey, but what’s reality if not boring compared to the titillating prospect of another chance of blaming CO2 emissions?
here’s a list of “medicanes” from Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicane
September 1947;
September 1969;
January 1982;
September 1983;
from 14 to 18 January 1995 in the central Mediterranean;
from 11 to 13 September 1996, in the western Mediterranean;
from 3 to 6 and 7 to 10 October 1996 in the western Mediterranean ;
from 6 to 11 October 1996 in western and central Mediterranean;
from 25 to 28 May 2003, in the western Mediterranean;
from 17 to 19 October 2003, in the western Mediterranean;
from 26 to 29 October 2005, in the central Mediterranean;
from 13 to 16 December 2005 in Central and Eastern Mediterranean;
from 6 to 9 November 2011, in the western Mediterranean;
from 27 to 29 October 2012, in the western Mediterranean;
from 15 to 19 November 2013, in the western Mediterranean.
if anybody has a link to a peer-reviewed article showing that Medicanes are actually increasing in size, frequency, strength, number or whatever else, please post it here.
ps once again note when they happen during the year
“Climate change scenarios gives a warmer Mediterranean Sea. According to assumed dynamics of the Medicanes, a higher Sea surface temperature might derive to stronger medicanes or tropical cyclones (Gaertner et al., 2007). Numerical simulations with the MM5 nonhydrostatic primitive equation model of the 950116 case are performed to verify this hypothesis (assuming similar vertical structure of the atmosphere). A control simulation of the episode is compared to a simulation in which the Sea surface temperature has been 5 °C increased (see animation). A stronger medicane is mantained for a longer period of time is simulated with a warmer sea. Another study applies an empirical genesis index of tropical cyclones in the Mediterranean basin under future regional scenarios (Romero and Emanuel, 2006). Despite the increasing of the Sea surface temperature, results do not give a clear increase of medicane activity. Probably related to a decrease of intrusions of upper level cold disturbances in the Mediterranean basin on future scenarios.” – University of the Balearic Islands.
http://www.uib.es/depart/dfs/meteorologia/METEOROLOGIA/MEDICANES/
Also climate risks discussed and covered by Tous and Romero in the International Journal of Climatology article “Meteorological environments associated with medicane development” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.3428/full
http://www.essl.org/ECSS/2013/programme/presentations/43.pdf
This study (Medicane risk in a changing climate) concluded there will be fewer events towards the end of the century but the events that do happen will be more powerful
“In spite of these geographical uncertainties, the GCMs
analyzed in this work consistently project fewer medicanes at
the end of the century compared to present (about 10 – 40%
less) but indicate a higher number of violent cases. As the
production of wind energy —
and thus the power of destruction of these storms is proportional to the wind speed cubed, we see our findings as a cause of future concern for exposed Mediterranean societies. ”
ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/Romero_Emanuel_2013.pdf
I didn’t ask about future events, rather what’s been happening until now. The IPCC just published ar5 wg1, feel free to quote.
Communiqué by the Italian National Council of Geologists (Google translate):
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meteoweb.eu%2F2013%2F11%2Fcomunicato-stampa-dei-geologi-non-e-solo-colpa-dei-fenomeni-estremi%2F240116%2F%3Fnomobile%3Dok&act=url
As expected, anti-IPCC arguments about increases in extreme events due to AGW are already been used by local politicians to wash their hands from all faults.
That is quite an interesting article that you have attached and it is not ruling climate change out, just saying the extreme event is a possible joint result of climate change and urbanisation. I have seen the same reasons mentioned for the measurable changes in the Hong Kong climate. I visit this site because I accept what many climate scientists are saying (and like/agree with the greenman’s views on things), some of which may be based on computer modelling (as well as palaeontology and other branches) , which is fine for me as a person that has spent a career modelling on various scientific and technical applications. Many of the projections forward are well into this century, it seems that you are very impatient for proof. Pity we cannot invent time travel for you. Meanwhile we would be wise to accept the projections and warnings, and by all means highlight when extraordinary events take place.
This is worth repeating. I am not ruling climate change out either, anthropogenic or otherwise. I am helping to understand that, based on what current science has established, extreme rains in November in Sardinia in 2013 cannot be attributed to anthropogenic climate change, or even to climate change in general.
I am not impatient for proof at all. Impatience is for those who chase weather disasters trying to link them to climate change.
Wrong.
It is well understood from physics that the Earth is increasing overall average temperature from more heat energy being trapped by a build up in the anthropogenic portion of GHGs.
This means that there are widespread ocean, and sea, temperature anomalies mostly in a positive direction.
This has been the case in the Mediterranean of late as a visit here will attest.
Zoom out of map, scroll across to the Med’ area centred on Italy, check the box Sea Surface Temperatures, click the ‘rose’ symbol and select ‘Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly’.
As you can see the temperatures are above average at the moment in most of the areas around Sardinia.
I captured a screen grab of dates 18th and 18th November which I could post if necessary.
In this article Sardinia hit by deadly Cyclone Cleopatra and floods we read:
and
It may be just another data point for the bigger climate change picture but nonetheless it should be yet another event to take notice of and not dismiss it as you are trying to do.
Indeed, one would be foolish to try to brush this event away as just another random weather incident. Its clear that many of the “outliers” in weather incidents are just crazy out of proportion like this one. And that is just why people attribute names like “biblical” and “apocalyptic” to them.
Just like cyclones or hurricanes, we might not see an increased frequency, but the physics when you get an increased hydrologic cycle cant really be disputed. As the atmosphere carries more moisture it also increases the chance of extreme events when it first decides to dump it over a land area (most of rainfall happens over oceans). Similarly we can be sure that as ocean temperatures rises, any cyclone or hurricane will have more heat available for its “engine”.
Personally I think we have just seen the tip of the iceberg on what mother nature can deliver when you tweak its main thermostat.
Omnologos, how many times has Sardinia seen 44 cm in 24 hours? Just curious.
Some places have broken their all time records, some other places haven’t. But then, an October snow doesn’t herald an ice age.
That omno’ is a response that qualifies for ‘Room 101′.
More and more places are breaking their all time records for floods, fires, droughts as the hydrological system is perturbed by global warming leading to climate change. Start connecting the dots omno’.
Lol, increased precipitation caused by global warming doesn’t differ between snowfall in the winter or rains when its not.
Perhaps you have already forgotten the mid October snowfall in South Dakota that killed over 100000 cattle this year? Was that also “god rolling the dice” and hence a completely random event?
John – you are not familiar with climate science. Even the most basic rules around attribution escape your grasp at the moment. Please intervene after reading the IPCC report, somehow oblivious (the report, not you)of all this fantastic evidence. Please take especially good care about the wording used in the report.
Oh, so I am not familiar with climate science? I for once believe climate scientists, which is more than I can say about you.
And is it a common event that thousands of cattle die from severe snowfall in the US every year? I would have thought that they’d start getting the cattle indoors a bit earlier if that was the case.
Since you liked to refer to Sherlock Holmes in your reply recently, perhaps you could enlighten us, using your brilliant mind on this related story:
There was severe rains in Norway, Bergen – my hometown – just recently. And I mean serious rain. We are quite used to a lot of rain but this was like nothing nobody had ever seen. Whole roads were turned to rivers and people were asked to leave their cars and find other ways to get home.
Well some genius said “why haven’t they scaled the piping to take this kind of rain by now, after all it rains a lot in Bergen!”.
I’ll leave you to figure out why, Mr Sherlock.
Btw here is a link to that recent event (in Norwegian):
http://www.ba.no/nyheter/article6985736.ece
v. quickly:
NevenA: you don’t understand that a 1-in-X years event does not happen once every X years. Fundamental statistical misunderstanding on your part. I am not dodging your question, it’s simply that you do not appear to have the basis for an argument about it.
John Christian Lønningdal: you do not believe in climate scientists. You believe in whatever you like to believe (see below). Bergen floods aren’t a sign of things to come any more than the Inhofe family building igloos.
As for the suggestion of what would make me change my mind on attribution of extreme events, first and foremost I would like that claim to be coming from an IPCC report or whatever equivalent we will get in the future. On the basis of the IPCC SREX, confirmed by AR5-WG1, attribution is premature for another decade (in the Mediterranean) or even more.
IOW whoever tries to attribute is going against climate science as we know it.
Then of course even if it appeared in IPCC AR17 or whenever, that doesn’t mean I would believe it automatically. I’d like to see a cogent, robust argument about it. Anything “strange” (novel techniques unheard of before, plenty of adjustments, etc) will weaken the argument in my eyes, but not necessarily invalidate it. Plain and unassailable statistics, a positive non-antagonistic attitude by the scientists involved, open data access, etc will instead strengthen the argument, but not necessarily validate it.
I would go as far as to say, if the positives are more numerous than the negatives I will take the argument as valid until proven otherwise. But it’s just hypothesizing now…in 2013, there is no scientific argument for looking for attributable extreme events to global warming, anthropogenic or not. It’s all in AR5-WG1.
I love it when you start talking all sciency like you think you know what you are talking about.
Actually, it appears he is taking “numbery” as well as “sciency”, and not making any better sense there.
I am not so sure we are on the same planet omno. In your world, accumulating heat in some mass doesn’t change anything in and around this mass it seems. For me it sounds like you have serious problems accepting simple physics. And if understanding AGW stops there already, I would advice you to go back to school and take some lessons.
Bergen has measured a 20% increase in rainfall over these past 100 years, which comes from both more moisture in the atmosphere and changes in the weather patterns because of a warming Arctic region and other systems affected by warming of the planet from increased greenhouse gases. Its not catastrophic yet, but the “outliers” in weather incidents are getting both stronger and more frequent. As I have mentioned before, the climate scientists are about to drop the 100-year-flood and similar categorizations because these have no longer any real meaning when the statistics no longer correspond to these earlier observations of what was considered “normal weather”.
As I have said before, I don’t need to wait for AR17 or a statistical table based on observation over the next 100 years to understand the effect of simple physics on our planet when you heat it up by adding so far a 40% increase in CO2 levels, any more than I need to see people dying from drinking Arsenic to understand this is something I should avoid drinking.
“October snow doesn’t herald an ice age.”
inform the Daily Mail
It is one of the tragedies of contemporary climate communication, that a paper like the Daily Mail has transmogrified on some topics (not the ice age business) as the lonely voice of reason
So, David Rose writing in the Daily Mail is the lonely voice of reason on climate change?
Strewth, industrial grade bull from omno’.
LMAO over the irony of O-Log talking about transmogrification. Particularly since his meaning here is not clear. I am just a dumb old guy, but can’t quite parse what “LIKE the Daily Mail”, “SOME topics (but NOT the ice age business)”, and “lonely VOICE OF REASON” mean.
O-Log is offering us his unsubstantiated OPINION here (otherwise known as a bald assertion), and seems to have forgotten to offer us any “proof” (as he so often demands of others). For example, I would love to hear what the Daily Mail said that makes it a “voice of reason” (and why it is “lonely”).
Of course, since it’s all about O-Log rather than the rain in Sardinia, we shouldn’t be too surprised. 11 out of 33 comments to date on this thread are from O-Log—the other 22 come from the rest of us (6 or 8 folks). SBAN, O-Log!
You mean The Daily Fail: http://greatwhitecon.info/
I am sure the fossil fuel industry is happy to have employed a puppet like David Rose as their spokesperson parroting the “paws” – and I am sure his knowledge about AGW is reflected in his knowledge of simple arithmetic.
Jeff Masters reports:
“Monday’s deluge was at most the 3rd greatest 24-hour rainfall event for Sardinia. An October 16, 1951 storm brought 544 mm (21.42″) in 24 hours to Sicca d’ Erba, causing the greatest 20th Century flood in Sardinia history. Second place goes to Villagrande Strisaili on December 6, 2004, when 517mm (20.35″) fell.”
That’s interesting. The last time a similar amount of rain fell in 24 hrs was in 2004, 9 years ago. So, is this a once every 10-year deluge? Probably not.
If the next deluge on Sardegna occurs in 10 years or less, I guess it will become more difficult to ascribe it to pure chance.
—
BTW, to others: you’re giving omnologos exactly what he wants, ie noise. He’s just here to provoke and derail. He lives off insults. Think about it.
We were certainly missing another amateur remote telepsychiatrist with huge gaps in statistic. Thank you NevenA.
If I lived off insults or were a narcisist I’d waste no time in pulling all discussions to be about me. Am afraid all these complaints mean you guys have zero arguments about the simplest of thesis, namely that it’s too early to chase attribution and a useless distraction bringing climate change into disrepute.
Much of the reports concludes that such: “… computer models show a general increase in storm intensity, with some scenarios predicting hurricanes.” “Some observed cyclones over the Mediterranean have already shown partially tropical characteristics …”
“The best explanation for these changes has to include a large human influence.”
but …
The intensity and frequency of tropical, extra-tropical cyclones can have a decisive impact gradients, not only temperature but also the pressure and humidity (baroclinicity conditions – extratropical). Let’s look into the distant past (not very).
Dezileau et al., 2011. Intense storm activity during the Little Ice Age on the French Mediterranean coast. (http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00617525/): “The apparent increase in intense storms around 250 years ago occurs during the latter half of the Little Ice Age, a time of lower continental surface temperatures.” “The apparent increase of the superstorm activity during the latter half of the Little Ice Age was probably due to the thermal gradient increase leading to enhanced lower tropospheric baroclinicity …”
Trouet et al., 2012. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092181811100155X):
“Such an increase in cyclone intensity could have resulted from the steepening of the meridional temperature gradient as the poles cooled more strongly than the Tropics from the MCA into the LIA.”
Donnelly et al., 2006. (http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm06/fm06-sessions/fm06_U51C.html):
“However, given the increase in intense tropical [only ?] cyclone landfalls during the later half of the LIA, tropical SSTs as warm as present are apparently not a requisite condition for increased intense …”