5 ms·

This is unrelated to the current administration. "No detectable change in storm" has been the finding for at least a decade. (I just checked AR4 published in 20

• Retric 9y ago
  Sure, but the same was said in 1980 and before. Still, climate change continues and we are collecting more data. So, there will be a transition point. In the end there are two forces, one is the random nature of weather which adds variability with any change. Another is the increase in storm strength from increasing temperature. So, we are already at the point where strong storms are statistically more likely. However, at what point can rule out randomly getting lucky such that existing storms have not gotten worse due to random luck? That question of what is considered enough has become a political question, so you can't expect the transition point to be chosen on a purely empirical basis.
  • phkahler 9y ago
    >> So, we are already at the point where strong storms are statistically more likely. You make statements like that but we are debating the conclusions of an article that says the data does not support that.
    • Retric 9y ago
      What they are saying is the magnitude of change falls below the noise floor. That does not mean there was no change. It further links future changes with warming. Both of which agree with what I am saying, but you seem to be missing the difference.